STRENGTHENING THE BRIDGE TOWARDS INCLUSIVE POLICYMAKINGA Collective Learning with Six Civil Society Organisations.

Synthesis Report for VOICE

“Echoing Evidence, Using Action Research

for Inclusive Participation”

by

Centre for Innovation Policy and Governance

November 2019

STRENGTHENING THE BRIDGE TOWARDS INCLUSIVE POLICYMAKINGA Collective Learning with Six Civil Society Organisations.

Strengthening the Bridge towards Inclusive Policymaking:

A Collective Learning with Six Civil Society Organisations

Centre for Innovation Policy and Governance (CIPG)

Jl. Danau Toba Nomor 138C

Bendungan Hilir, Tanah Abang

Jakarta Pusat 10210

Indonesia

Indonesian to English Translator: Ayesha Chairanissa

English Proofreader: Dwitri Amalia

Cover design by Teguh Syafarizal, copyright protected

Unless stated otherwise, the content of this book is protected under

Creative Common license BY-NC-SA.

Authors:

Ferzya Farhan

Klara Esti

Anesthesia H. Novianda

Critical Reviewers: Mirta Amalia and Leonardus K. Nugraha

How to cite this book:

Farhan, F., Esti, K., Novianda, AH., (2019). Strengthening the Bridge towards Inclusive

Policymaking (English Edition). Report. Jakarta: CIPG.

1

AcknowledgementThis synthesis report titled “Strengthening the Bridge towards Inclusive Policymaking: A Collective Learning with Six Civil Society Organisations” came as a form of public accountability for the CIPG programme called “Echoing Evidence: Using Action Research for Inclusive Participation”.

This report contains learning analyses by CIPG while undertaking the aforementioned programme between August 2017 until August 2019. Together with the Active Society Institute (AcSI) Makassar, Indigenous People’s Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN-Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara) in Sumbawa, the Pasirputih Community, Society for Women Foundation (Maupe-Yayasan Masyarakat untuk Perempuan) Maros, he Amnaut Bife “Kuan” Foundation (Yabiku-Yayasan Amnaut Bife “Kuan”), and The Wali Ati Foundation (Yasalti- Yayasan Wali Ati), CIPG learned that CSOs are capable as a bridge between marginalised communities and policymaking.

Aside from this, the main role of CIPG as facilitators is also crucial in enabling the smooth-running of this programme. As facilitators, Ferzya Farhan, Klara Esti, Daya Sudrajat and Anesthesia H. Novianda came to realise that the rigidity necessary to ensure concise research outcomes should go hand in hand with flexibility in facing different conditions in the field. Of course, this learning process is inseparable from the contributions of local facilitators, particularly Nurhady Sirimorok and Pantoro Tri Kuswardono.

This programme was supervised by Leonardo K. Nugraha as the Research Director, to prevent mismanagement in the field that deviates from principles of the research, and Mona L. Usmani as the programme manager and Operational Director of CIPG, who ensured that this activity runs smoothly.

We hope this report becomes an enjoyable reading and a source of inspiration for people from diverse backgrounds. That in the end, the voices of the marginalised community can be perfectly conveyed and inclusive participation in policymaking can be realised.

We would like to thank everyone who supported us and contributed to this programme, especially the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands via OXFAM Novib and HIVOS for their funding.

2

AcSI Active Society Institute

AMAN Indigenous People's Alliance of the Archipelago (Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara)

AMANDA Regional Branch for the Indigenous People's Alliance of the Archipelago (Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara Daerah)

CIPG Centre for Innovation Policy and Governance

CREAME Critical Research Methodology

DPRD Regional House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah)

ICT Information and Communication Technology

Maupe Society for Women (Masyarakat untuk Perempuan)

CSO Civil Society Organisation

Perda Local Government Regulation (Peraturan Daerah)

PP Government Regulations (Peraturan Pemerintah)

RUU Bill (Rancangan Undang-undang)

SADAR The Alliance of Merchants of Pasar Terong (Persaudaraan Pedagang Pasar Terong)

Supres Presidential Warrant (Surat Perintah Presiden)

Yabiku The Amnaut Bife “Kuan” Foundation (Yayasan Amnaut Bife “Kuan”)

Yasalti The Wali Ati Foundation (Yayasan Wali Ati)

List of Abbreviations

3

Table of Contents

1 Introduction: Strengthening the Bridge towards Inclusive Policymaking

1.1. Background and Rationale 9

1.2. Questions and Aim 10

1.3. Analytical Framework 11

1.4. Report Structure 12

1.5. Report Limitations 13

2 Literature Review: Understanding the Role of Research in Policy Advocacy

2.1. Theory of Change 17

2.2. Inclusive Policymaking 23

2.3. Knowledge in Policymaking 27

2.4. Marginalised Communities and Civil Society Organisations Engagement in Policymaking 30

3 Methodology

3.1. Observations 39

3.2. Field Notes 39

3.2.1 CIPG Facilitators 39

Acknowledgement 1

List of Abbreviations 2

Table of Contents 3

List of Figures 5

List of Image 5

List of Tables 5

4

Bibliography 82

Appendix 86

A. VOICE Global Grants and CIPG Profile 86

B. CSOs, Local Facilitators, and Locations Profile 87

3.2.2 Local Facilitators 39

3.3. Focused Discussions 40

3.4. Surveys 40

3.5. One-on-one Interview 40

3.6. Bellwether Interview 41

3.7. Outcome Harvesting 41

Presenting Evidence and Inclusive Participation to Change Policies

4.1. Explore, Test, and Reflect 46

4.1.1. Explore 48

4.1.2. Test 55

4.1.3. Reflect 57

4.2. Share & Apply 58

4.3. Empower, Influence, & Amplify 60

4.3.1. Empower 60

4.3.2 Influence 64

4.3.3. Amplify 69

4

Reflections andRecommendations

5.1 Reflections 74

5.2 Recommendations 80

5

5

List of Figures Figure 1Theory of Change VOICE Global (2017 version) 19

Figure 2 Outcome Planning for Expected Interventions 22

Figure 3 Types of Knowledge 28

Figure 4 Locals-to-Policy Knowledge Process by Nugroho, Carden and Antlov (2018) 29

Figure 5 Intervention Stage CIPG 37

Figure 6 CSOs Activism Spectrum 38

Figure 7 VOICE CIPG Team 2017-2019 Intervention Plan 47

Figure 8 Intervention Flow during Research Phase 48

Figure 9 Intervention Flow during Advocacy Phase 55

Figure 10 Challenges faced by CSOs in the Research Phase 61

Figure 11 Benefits gained by CSOs in the Research Phase 63

Figure 12 Challenges faced by CSOs in the Advocacy Phase 65

Figure 13 CIPG Intervention Flow and Result 79

List of ImageImage 1 Action Research Spiral 36

List of TablesTable 1 Research Experiences of CSO staff 46

Table 2 CREAME Training Materials 49

Table 3 Advocacy Workshop Materials 56

Table 4 Reflections Workshop Materials 57

List of Attachment TableAttachment Table 1 Local facilitator selection process 89

6

INTRODUCTION: STRENGTHENING THE BRIDGE TOWARDS INCLUSIVE POLICYMAKING

1

7

1.1. Background and Rationale 9

1.2. Questions and Aim 10

1.3. Analytical Framework 111.4. Report Structure 121.5. Report Limitations 13

8

Introduction: Strengthening the Bridge towards Inclusive Policymaking

1

Public involvement in policymaking in Indonesia is protected in Law 25/2004 on the National Development Planning System which states that participatory approach is a part of the planning process. All members of the society, regardless whether they are women or men, are citizens with the right to take part in that process.

However, what is often the problem in this process is the inequality of the representation and level of involvement of these groups (Young, 2000; Women Research Institute, 2005; Bochel et al., 2008; Akatiga, 2010). In particular, groups that are marginalised due to economic, social, spatial, political status, or even their gender. They are known as the marginalised community (OXFAM Novib and Hivos, 2017). So, what should be done in order to achieve wider representation of the communities, especially so that marginalised communities can become more active?

This report will review CIPG’s efforts in increasing citizen involvement in policy-making process and the responses of the parties involved.

9

1.1 Background and Rationale

Although Law 25/2004 has given the mandate to increased citizen participation in the

policymaking at all levels of government, in reality, it is only elite circles, those who have

knowledge, have been recognised, and are capable to access policymakers. Meanwhile,

participation of marginalised communities is still regarded as low and passive, only

as listeners who “follow the will of the majority,” even without any part in the decision-

making process (Akatiga, 2010; Nugroho et al., 2013).

Several studies (Court et al., 2006; Bochel et al., 2008; Nugroho, 2011; Adibroto et al.,

2013; Nugroho et al., 2013; Nugroho, Carden and Antlov, 2018) reveal that in general,

citizen participation in the policymaking process is hindered by the limited access,

communication and negotiation capacity, as well as minimum ability to gather

information and process knowledge. Thus, in the end, citizens involved in the process

are limited to those possessing the aforementioned attributes, such as the elites and

activists (Akatiga, 2010).

Whereas in fact, an all-inclusive citizen participation in the policymaking process is

believed to be able to produce policies that are more accurate for the public (Theiss-

Morse, 1993; Young, 2000; Irvin and Stansbury, 2004; Bochel et al., 2008). Moreover,

contextual knowledge of these citizens from their own experience, is relevant in finding

solutions to local problems (Nugroho, Carden and Antlov, 2018).

In general, marginalised groups are deemed to not have or to have less of the necessary

knowledge to be involved in the policymaking process. Their voices may be heard only

if they are personally close to activist groups and/or lower level governments (Akatiga,

2010). Meanwhile, activist groups are deemed to possess knowledge, experience

and network to the relevant governments. They are often found within Civil Society

Organisations (CSOs).

Thus, CSOs play a role in hastening and broadening citizens’ access to governance.

Nevertheless, these activists’ knowledge, experience and network ought to be managed

in such a way that it can be used as evidence to support advocacy for accurate policies.

10

This became the rationale for CIPG and VOICE Indonesia when devising the capacity

building programme titled “Echoing Evidence: Action Research for Inclusive Participation”.

This programme was meant to increase the involvement of marginalised communities

in regional policymaking, and to encourage policymakers to take into account the

knowledge of local citizens.

Firstly, we started the programme by enriching CSOs’ knowledge-processing ability.

CSOs’ knowledge was gathered and shared through action research. From here, we hope

that the CSOs will be able to evaluate and analyse field events. Provided with concrete

field data and a thorough understanding of the context of the issues, CSOs together with

marginalised communities would then carry out the suitable policy advocacy.

1.2 Questions and Objectives

Against the background, the guiding research question during this series of intervention

is:

How can marginalised communities gather evidence to inform policy-making

process that affect their existence?

This programme, therefore, aims to:

a. empower society through building the capacity of Indonesian CSOs so as to

construct a proper and thorough evidence;

b. advocate inclusive participation by increasing involvement of CSOs in the policy

making process, especially at the local level.

From December 2017 to August 2019, CIPG supervised six CSOs in conducting action

research regarding the existence of the marginalised communities which they represent.

This was followed by a policy advocacy through written public articles and policy papers.

11

We closed this series of programmes with a joint reflection. Our focus is on two main

aspects: developing research capability of civil societies and evidence-based policy

advocacy.

We targeted six CSOs from three regions in Eastern Indonesia. The focus of the six CSOs

are spread across on three marginalised communities: indigenous communities (two

CSOs), victims of gender discrimination (two CSOs), and age discrimination (two CSOs).

Three outcomes were expected from each CSO: a research paper, popular written articles

on online and/or offline media, as well as a policy paper for the targeted policymaking.

1.3 Analytical Framework

This report refers to the Theory of Change compiled by VOICE Global Theory of Change,

which has long been used as an analytical framework to understand cause and effect

in development programmes. We chose this approach as we wanted to observe how

interventions contributed towards changes that we wanted to achieve together through

the VOICE Global programme. Long-term changes that we wanted to accomplish are as

follows:

Long-term goals: Most marginalised and discriminated individuals are empowered to

express their view and demand their rights for responsive and inclusive decision making,

policymaking and policy implementation with transparent and accountable development

processes.1

Our long-term goals stated above can be construed as to this day, many marginalised and

discriminated individuals are still not included in the development processes, whether

in decision making, policymaking, or inclusive and responsive policy implementation.

1 Most marginalised and discriminated individuals are empowered to express their view and demand their rights for responsive and inclusive decision making, policymaking and policy implementation with transparent and accountable development processes.

12

1.4 Report Structure

This synthesis report will focus on the lessons learned from the interventions we

carried out on the six CSOs spread across the provinces of South Sulawesi, West Nusa

Tenggara and East Nusa Tenggara. After the introduction in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 will

look at the theoretical framework used to explain and understand the relationship

between intervention programmes on research and policy advocacy with marginalised

communities and CSOs. This report will continually reflect back on this theory to

emphasise the importance of the role of CSOs in magnifying the voices of marginalised

communities in evidence-based policy advocacy. Chapter 3 explains the methodology for

this programme, including how we compiled this report and the stages of interventions

taken. Chapter 4 dissects the result of the interventions and how it fits into the theoretical

framework. Lastly, Chapter 5 will close with reflections and a conclusion on the research

findings illustrating the relationships between marginalised communities, CSOs and

policymakers. This chapter offers programmes that could be undertaken by the relevant

parties.

13

1.5 Report Limitations

This research titled Echoing Evidence, Action Research for Inclusive Participation has

limitations, and they are:

c. Geographical limitations. This research collects results from interventions on six

organisations located in Eastern Indonesia. Organisations outside of the six may

or may not experience the same things.

d. Analytical limitations. The analysis of this research only covers the dynamics

during the intervention to observe the changes in the six organisations, therefore

we cannot convey all of the data and analyses collected.

Even so, the outcome from this research is expected to provide a basic understanding

of the trends in the capacity building of research and evidence-based policy advocacy.

14

LITERATURE REVIEW: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF RESEARCH IN POLICY ADVOCACY

2

15

2.1. Theory of Change 17

2.2. Inclusive Policymaking 23

2.3. Knowledge in Policymaking 27

2.4. Marginalised Communities and Civil Society Organisations Engagement in Policymaking 30

16

In our efforts to develop the capability of the public to thoroughly and accurately

gather evidence and to encourage inclusive participation in the policymaking process,

particularly at the regional level, we ought to understand the theory that is the foundation

of this capability development programme (hereinafter referred to as intervention).

An understanding concerning efforts for the changes we want to achieve, policymaking

context, relationship between research and advocacy, as well as the relationship between

marginalised communities with CSOs will act as a solid foundation for the programmes

we propose.

Hence, this chapter will elaborate on these points and highlight the reason why a

thorough gathering of evidence (through research) by CSOs is a crucial step to policy

advocacy, especially in regard to the existence of marginalised communities.

Literature Review: Understanding the Role of Research in Policy Advocacy

2

17

2.1 Theory of Change

The term Theory of Change was first coined by Weiss CH (1995) who believes that

programme evaluations should be guided by a theory. In particular, he describes this

theory as, “a theory on how and why an initiative works” (Weiss, 1995, p.66). At the

time, Weiss was advising that theory-based-evaluations should be used on programmes

related to health and risk prevention. However, since it was put forward, Weiss’s theory

came to be used by various funding institutions (donors) and their organisers to see

what happens after they carry out intervention through development programmes (Stein

and Valters, 2012).

Several evaluation theory academics have stated that Theory of Change does not have

a rigid definition. On the contrary, it is based on the needs of the creator (Vogel, 2012;

Rogers, 2014). Thus, the theory itself evolves. Various grant organisations have even

created their own version of Theory of Change. The Asia Foundation (Stein and Valters,

2012), UNICEF (Rogers, 2014), HIVOS (van Es, Guijt and Vogel, 2015), OXFAM Novib and

HIVOS Consortium (Kamstra, 2017) and UNDAF (UNDG, 2015) indicate that there is a

number of theories of change which have been recognised in the last five years.

Although it has a variety of definitions, Theory of Change is generally accepted as

the approach to evaluate changes that occur after the intervention by organisations,

planned prior to the execution of the intervention (Stein and Valters, 2012; Rogers, 2014;

UNDG, 2015). We observe the presence of similar characteristics in each organisation’s

Theory of Change, confirming the research of Maini, Mounier-jack and Borghi (2018)

and Thornton et al., (2017), which is that they consist of organised components such as

exercises, outcomes, and results (short-term or long-term).

Because each organisation uses a different definition that can be difficult to comprehend

in a written form, Theory of Change is often simplified through the use of visual aids, like

figures or pictures (Davies, 2018; Peta, 2018). At the same time, the simplification of this

theory can potentially create a misunderstanding on the part of the reader (Davies, 2018;

Peta, 2018). To ensure that everyone can properly understand these visual aids, people

18

who were not involved in the formulation of Theory of Change should be consulted when

creating them (van Es, Guijt and Vogel, 2015).

Theory of Change is broadly used by grant donors to evaluate changes that resulted

from their grants. Often it is also prepared Theory of Change by them, and thus, cannot

be completely free from informational bias. To anticipate this, we need to ensure that

Theory of Change is not so rigid, so that it can be evaluated periodically.

Interestingly, HIVOS (van Es, Guijt and Vogel, 2015) and their consortium with OXFAM

Novib (Kamstra, 2017) view Theory of Change as an approach to understand expected

external achievements, is flexible and adaptable to local contexts. The idea is that this

way, Theory of Change can help HIVOS to analyse the complex system in their respective

field. For this reason, the visual aid for VOICE’s Theory of change, as a product of said

consortium, has only been drafted once in 2017 to be re-evaluated and adapted to the

context of the field they are working in.

From the above discourse, we deduce that Theory of Change should be viewed as a

guidance for grant recipients to ensure that their interventions achieve the expected

outcomes, while grant donors should appreciate the significance of the process and

the influence of the area when observing the intervention responses, and both should

consider Theory of Change as part of the learning process.

This report will particularly consider Theory of Change by VOICE Programme developed

by OXFAM Novib and HIVOS (Kamstra, 2017; OXFAM Novib and HIVOS, 2017).

19

Most marginalzed and discriminated people are empowered to express their views and demand their rights for responsive and inclusive decision

making, police making and police implementation with transparent and accountable development

processesLong

-ter

m o

utco

me

Impact GoalsAcces to services

Acces to resources

Amplify

Empower

Share & Apply Innovate & Scale Living & Learning

Grant Facility

Explore, Test,

Reflect

Program Learning

Influence

Political partitipation

Figrure1 Theory of Change VOICE Global (2017 version)

Source: VOICE Global (2017)

Figure 1 is a visual aid depicting VOICE Global grant programmes’ Theory of Change.

Starting from the bottom right, this Theory of Change demonstrates that VOICE’s grant

funding was divided between four components:2

a. Empowerment, to be used by formal or informal groups directly affiliated

with marginalised communities. The empowerment fund is used to increase

awareness, to invest on their own leadership ability and to build the confidence

they need to ‘show up to be heard’.

b. Influencing reinforces the organisational capability to represent, to express, and

strengthen the voices of the marginalised communities. CIPG, in particular, is

one of the recipients of the fund in this component.

c. Innovate and learn enable recipients to examine, learn from, and potentially raise

2 Types of VOICE grants: https://voice.global/assets/2019/06/Voice-annual-report-2018-A4-web.pdf

20

ideas and new approaches. This includes organisations acting as facilitators for

Linking and Learning grant recipients in each country.

d. Sudden opportunity. This grant is to create flexibility in collective actions to

take advantage of specific yet unexpected opportunities. In this context, it can

influence policies or deal with the threatened civil space. This grant is only

available from time to time.

Those four components are consolidated as the Linking and Learning programme, a

process that is facilitated to encourage lesson-sharing and provides forums to learn from

one another and empowers marginalised and discriminated groups3.This programme

aims to produce new insights and innovation for the components of this grant, nationally

or internationally, through the three Linking & Learning (L&L)4 cycles, which are:

• Explore. Exploring requires grant recipients to go to the communities

• Test. Focusing on testing innovations. Innovations can include anything that

has never been done by grant recipients

• Reflect. Reflection asks grant recipients to make time to stop and evaluate their

work

Grant recipients are expected to appreciate the intervention processes each of them is

undertaking by carrying out the series of tasks and reflecting on them. The outcomes

from the Linking & Learning reflections can be divided into two channels:

a. Share & apply, by sharing their reflections with other grant recipients, others can

learn and apply the results on their own programmes.

b. Innovate & scale, with the knowledge obtained by other grant recipients,

organisations that took part can innovate from what they have learnt, and even

improve their learning outcomes.

3 Kick-off Linking & Learning Presentation 24 November 2017 by Zack Lee

4 Written explanation from Kick-off Linking & Learning 24 November 2017 by Zack Lee, which can be accessed at: https://voice.global/blog/building-blocks-linking-learning/

21

From these two channels, we hope to create marginalised communities who:

• Empower (for marginalised individuals to be able to fully participate in their

community, they need to feel empowered and accepted; these groups need the

capacity to build a safe space, to build confidence and skills)

• Can influence (groups and their representations need the capacity to use

various lobbying and advocacy tools to influence policies, and the behaviour

and practices of policymakers)

• Are able to amplify (groups needing allies for their voices to reach critical mass,

to change norms and attitude; they need the capacity to build alliances and

network with various stakeholders) their own voices

In the end, this joint intervention will allow:

a) marginalised individuals to be accepted by power holders as equal citizens and

as political, economic and social participants

b) responsive and inclusive government, policies and businesses practices, so that

they can provide access for services, resources and political participation of

marginalised communities.

In particular, CIPG receives the grant for the influence component and we are strategising

to contribute directly to increase political participations of marginalised communities.

Our analysis will focus on aspects promoting those contributions, such as explore-test-

reflect as well as share and apply and empower-influence-amplify. Meanwhile, innovate

and scale and direct contributions to increase political participation will help us elaborate

on the reflection for the programme.

22

Alongside the above explanation of Theory of Change, the CIPG team translated the

long-term changes into the framework of Outcome Mapping5 to make it easier for us to

see the changes that occurred, as follows:

LIKE TO SEE EXPECT TO SEE LOVE TO SEE

Marginal groups become involve in the

local policy-making process

Local civil society organisations

involvement in the policy-making process

gradually increment

Local civil society organisations capacity on compiling evidence

in promtly way escalated

Figure 2 Desired Intervention Outcomes

Source: Authors, adopted from Young et al. (2014)

The main outcome we would like to see from the intervention is the increased capacity

of CSOs in gathering evidence thoroughly and accurately. What we expect to see is for

CSOs to be involved in their local policymaking process. Once CSOs are capable and are

involved in local policymaking, we would love to see the involvement of marginalised

communities in local policymaking. We use this Outcome Mapping to assist the research

team to see the extent of the contribution of our interventions in the VOICE Global

Theory of Change.

5 Outcome Mapping is often compared against Theory of Change. It helps programme organisers to observe changes at the individual level as well as collectively (Vogel, 2012). Outcome Mapping was first formulated by International Development Research Centre (IDRC) as a way to plan their development initiative and evaluate the result (Young et al., 2014). This framework focuses on the change in behaviour, relationships, actions, and individual, group and organisational activities.

23

2.2 Inclusive Policymaking

When talking about change, in this context we are referring to inclusive policymaking

that engages marginalised communities. However, how have policies been made in

Indonesia so far?

A number of public policy literature have demonstrated that although public policy is

decided by the government, its formulations and implementations involve other actors

and institutions (Howlett and Mukherjee, 2017; Friedrich, 2007; Kay, 2006, Somit and

Peterson, 2003).6 In essence, public policy is a series of formal statements issued by

governments to deal with public issues.

In Indonesia, the parliament plays a central role in public policymaking through law

formulation and amendments, as well as budget formulation and implementation.

Regulation planning is usually organised by the task force in the relevant ministry,

accompanied by academic document (or naskah akademik)7 containing deliberations

and detailed explanations on issues that the regulation has to address. However, a

previous investigation (Datta et al., 2011, p. 13) uncovers that in practice, these formal

processes are often flawed, or the accompanying academic document are poorly written

or even unsubstantive. The policy outcomes are then insufficient to resolve the issue in

the community or are irrelevant to the needs of the people.

The practice of regional autonomy could be an opportunity for creating accurate public

policies.8 Within the framework of regional autonomy, the province acts as a coordinator,

6 According to Dewey (1927), public policy often stresses the “public and their problems”. Furthermore, for Thomas Dye (1972), almost anything a government chooses to do or not to do is public policy. Sharkansky (1970) defines public policy as a government’s action to reach certain goals. Anderson (1979) defines public policy as a series of actions deliberately taken by an actor or a group of actors and its purpose is to solve a problem. Meanwhile, Lester and Stewart (1996) translates public policy as a process or a series of government actions to resolve a problem in the community. According to Lemay (2002), policies are a series of actions deliberately taken by a certain actor or actors in problem-handling. Somit and Peterson (2003) defines public policy as government action. Friedrich (2007) states that public policy consists of decisions suggested by individuals, groups, or governments with the goal of solving a problem.

7 Law 12/2011 on the Formation of Laws and Regulations Article 1: Academic document are research papers or legal studies and other research findings about a particular problem, that can be held scientifically accountable for the management of the problem in a Draft Law, Provincial Draft Regulation, or District/City Draft Regulation as a solution for problems and the legal needs of the community.

8 Law 6/2014 on Villages requires village governments to work with principles that are democratic, promotes gender equality and non-discriminatory, while also involving marginalised communities (minority communities) in decision-making. Furthermore, Law 23/2014 on Regional Governments also governs participation dimensions and channels that can be used by the community.

24

although a large portion of this authority lies at the district level. Every region has its

own Regional House of Representatives (DPRD-Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah) and

its own elected head of government (governor, regent, or mayor) who presents budget

drafts and development plans to DPRD for their approval. Local parliaments have three

functions: laws, budgets and monitoring. Each region has its own long and complicated

process for development planning and budgeting.

Unfortunately, after three decades of New Order and two decades of Reformation, the

regional governments’ ability to manage large funds, identify priorities and challenges,

and establish local development planning and strategy is still lacking (Datta, 2017;

Pramusinto, 2016). These governments rarely use research and data in policymaking,

and when they do, they only use statistical data to decide on the policy agenda (Zhang,

2015; Datta et al., 2016, p. 6).

Due to the complicated laws on procurement, policymakers rarely carry out independent

research. It is not customary to involve stakeholders (practitioners, experts, universities,

business community, civil society) in creating local policies; hence policymakers cannot

reap the benefits from the wealth of knowledge of these stakeholders in relations to those

policies (Sutmuller and Setiono, 2011, p.42). The implication is that those policymakers

do not have a comprehensive understanding of the issues and end up issuing irrelevant

policies.

25

Box 1 Problematic Regional Regulations

Regional regulations are in fact logical consequences from regional autonomy. Regional regulations are needed to perform government authorities and affairs handed over by central government to provincial governments and district/city governments. Sadly, not all regional regulations are published as a solution. Until June 2016, there have been 3,143 problematic regional regulations that had to be revoked or revised as requested by the Ministry of Home Affairs (see https://www.kemendagri.go.id/media/filemanager/2016/06/21/b/a/batal_perda_21_juni_2016.pdf). Thousands of regional regulations that have been revoked are believed to have inhibited the development of regional economies, complicating the bureaucratic process, obstructing the licencing and investment process, inhibiting the ease of doing business, complicating access to public services, and are contrary to regulations at higher levels.

In his article titled “Organising Regional Regulations in the Era of Regional Autonomy (Menata Perda pada Era Otda)” (Media Indonesia, 15 December 2017) Djohermansyah Djohan (Professor at the Institute Governance of Home Affairs, Director General of Regional Authority of the Ministry of Home Affairs 2010-2014, Acting Governor of Riau 2013-2014 ) recorded 10 crucial issues in the creation and implementation of regional regulations. First, regional regulations are contrary to higher level regulations. Second, regional regulations are in opposition to public needs and morality. Third, regional regulations inhibit investment. Fourth, regional regulations are formulated without the involvement of stakeholders. Fifth, regional regulations are formulated without public consultations. Sixth, regional regulations formulations are tainted with bribery and extortion. Seventh, regional regulations formulations are not transparent and vague. Eight, there is no regional regulations registration system. Ninth, regional regulations continue to be performed by the regions even when they have been revoked. Tenth, the scarcity in the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in regional regulations supervision.

The absence of multi-stakeholders involvement in policy formulations absolutely betrays

the principle of inclusive policymaking. Simply stated, inclusive policymaking is the

approach for deliberating options and making decisions that actively involve everyone

directly affected by those decisions. The word “inclusive” here covers the process

(policymaking) as well as the result (policy outcome). OECD (2013) stresses that

inclusive policymaking should be a transparent process, evidence-driven, accessible,

and responds to as many citizens as possible. This inclusive policymaking attempts to

assert a variety of aspirations/voices and views – including traditional customs – in the

policymaking process.

26

Box 2 Citizen Participation Opportunities: Regulations vs Practice

The opportunity for citizen participation in policymaking has actually been initiated in Law 25/2004 on National Development Planning System which includes the element of “optimising community participation”. Likewise, UU 12/2011 concerning Formation of Legislation Regulations also implies that the public has the right to provide verbal and/or written input in the formation of legislation regulations.

On the other hand, the establishment of Law 6/2014 on Villages is actually an opportunity to break the exclusion of public/citizens communities who have tended to be marginalised (or excluded) in development. The mandate of the Village Law is to guarantee the birth of social inclusion at the village level, both in terms of village structuring, village governance, village development and village regulation-making. In these aspects, the Village Law requires village government administrators to work with democratic principles, gender justice and non-discrimination, and include marginal groups (minority groups) in decision making (deliberation) and supervision (Zakaria and Simarmata, 2015).

In addition, normatively, inclusive policy making is also guaranteed in Law 23/2014 on Regional Government which contains new material on community participation. Community participation is the participation of citizens to channel their aspirations, thoughts and interests in the administration of Regional Government. In addition to the dimension of community participation, this law also regulates various channels that can be used by citizens to participate in the administration of governments in their regions.

Unfortunately, in practice, citizen participation is still limited to groups that have access and knowledge, such as elite groups and activists (Akatiga, 2010, Sudarno and Utomo, 2018). In other words, even though regulations that open up opportunities for community participation already exist, marginalised communities still have difficulty voicing their aspirations directly.

In practice, public policymaking is influenced by cultural, capability and power-relations

dimensions shaped by social traditions and history (Bevir and Rhodes 2003; Schmidt

2010; Blomkamp et al., 2018). The bureaucracy tasked with providing inherent, complex

and political policy advice, has the tendency to make decisions that puts forward

organisational traditions and political interests before optimal solutions (John, 2012;

Geurts, 2011). In Indonesia, the legal processes for policymaking cannot accurately be

described as a process supported by rational problem solving. Moreover, consultation

practices and policy evaluations by the government is still inadequate (Blomkamp et

al., 2018; Zhang, 2015). The decision on whether a programme or a policy needs to be

adopted or continued is not based on previous evaluations (Zhang, 2015). As a result,

the government often return to old policies/solutions (routine).

27

2.3 Knowledge in Policymaking

Although politics is the primary factor which affects policymaking in Indonesia, access

and utilisations of all sorts of evidence can prove to be useful in these processes (Pellini

et al., 2018). Sadly, the information used in policymaking so far is still limited to those

from the elites (selected groups of society), not from grassroots knowledge. Whereas in

fact, what we need is the knowledge from the citizens who are affected by these policies,

especially from marginalised communities.

The process from knowledge to policy is frequently portrayed as a cycle consisting

of three elements: (1) policymakers with a demand, (2) researchers who will fulfil the

demand, and (3) middlemen with the mediation and communication skills to ensure

understanding from policymakers so that they can accurately use the evidence (Nugroho,

Carden and Antlov, 2018). Even so, in reality, the process is not simple, and the cycle

can be messy. There are many actors with different value propositions and different

background knowledge that interact during this policy formulation process.

28

Scientific Knowledge

Professional Knowledge

Local Knowledge

ExperimentalSemi-experimental

Case study

BureaucratMediatorActivist

ResidentsReligionCulture

Experience

Figure 3 Types of Knowledge

Source: Nugroho, Carden and Antlov (2018)

Knowledge that affects public policy can be categorised into three types: scientific,

professional and local knowledge (Nugroho, Carden and Antlov, 2018), although the

categorisation is not rigid.

The first type of knowledge is scientific knowledge. This type of knowledge produces

a collection of data to advise us when making assumptions about the community and

their implications for the policy. The key actors in this type of knowledge are scientists/

academics. They collect scientific evidence using qualitative and quantitative methods.

These will be debated by academics, then some will go on to be presented to policymakers

as materials for their deliberation.

In considering the influence of knowledge in public policy, oftentimes special treatments

are given to “experts”, scientists deemed to have superior knowledge and evidence

(Jasanoff, 1990; Kingdon, 1994; Carden, 2009). Often, the scientific knowledge is what

is called ‘evidence’ in evidence-based policymaking.

29

Professional knowledge comes from the experience or practice - practice-informed

knowledge (Jones, Datta and Jones, 2009). Professional knowledge is usually based

on secondary sources along with direct experiences of the practitioners, in addition to

their knowledge about the context and processes their knowledge applied to. Nugroho,

Carden and Antlov (2018) identified three forms of professional knowledge: bureaucratic,

intermediary and advocacy. Bureaucratic knowledge is practiced within bureaucracy,

intermediary knowledge is practiced by think tanks, and advocacy knowledge is

practiced primarily by advocacy groups. These reflect the ability of certain groups to

practically apply their knowledge through methods that would potentially influence

policy outcomes.

Society Local CSOsResearch Institutes

and Research advocacy

Local governments

Represented by

Gives information to

Decision whether or not to use the knowledge

Unfixed Relationship

Processing information to become knowledge

Figure 4 Local-Knowledge-to-Policy Process by Nugroho, Carden and Antlov (2018) reviewed

Source: Authors

The use of professional knowledge is based on the believe that the producers of the

knowledge have used evidence and their expertise to advise a policy in a fair and honest

way, that they have a deep understanding of the context surrounding the decision that

has to be taken, and that they have not manipulated the evidence, especially for their

own benefits or goals. For this reason, the reputation of a think tank is important: think

tank takes on primary research and integrate it with other knowledge to articulate the

significance of an evidence to a policymaking. If they are not respectable due to evidence

manipulation or conceding to certain interest groups, they lose their ability to influence

until their reputation has been re-established.

30

Thirdly, local knowledge, is the type of knowledge possessed by a group of people in

particular communities or organisations that has accumulated over time through direct

experiences and interactions with their social and natural environments (Nugroho,

Carden and Antlov, 2018). Unlike scientific knowledge, local knowledge is often not

clearly structured.

Which evidence is brought forward or picked in the policymaking process is a political

choice (Parkhurst, 2016). Nevertheless, this political choice can change and be influenced

by actors in the system if they are aware of the political dimension of the decision they

are making and are able to identify the way and means of bringing particular insights to

the table for consideration (Nugroho, Carden and Antlov, 2018). Giving the opportunity

for other types of knowledge to contribute in policymaking is a democratic process that

implies information is produced through participation from the wider community and

legitimate actors (Nugroho, Carden and Antlov, 2018).

2.4 Marginalised Communities and Civil Society Organisations

Engagement in Policymaking

“Can the subaltern speak?” A question asked by Spivak (1983) that is still relevant today.

Inspired by Gramsci (1971) who identified the subaltern are the outsiders, excluded and

displaced from the social order. For Spivak, the subaltern denotes everything related to

the limitation of access (Louai, 2012; Setiawan, 2018).

Criticisms by Gramsci and Spivak still reverberate even today, affecting the reasoning for

world development targets, such as with the principle “Nothing About Us, Without Us”

elaborated in the manifesto of the United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals:

No one will be left behind [in the collective journey to end poverty and inequality]. In

addition, the most marginalised will be prioritised. We shall endeavour to reach the furthest

behind first.9

9 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

31

However, who does ‘the marginalised’ mean? For Spivak (1983), it is someone

economically displaced, oppressed and without a voice, which more often is a woman.

It seems this explanation refers to the UN’s emphasis on economic factors (Watkins,

2014; Stuart and Woodroffe, 2016), and Indonesia’s (Akatiga, 2010; BAPPENAS and UN

in Indonesia, 2017) stress on its lack of asset and its location in villages (Regulation of

the Ministry of the Home Affairs No. 110 Year 2016).10

In fact, Spivak cleverly pinpointed that the problem for the subalterns (or the marginalised)

does not lie solely on their economic status. The VOICE Programme should pay attention

to this (OXFAM Novib and HIVOS, 2017), as the word marginalised does not mean only

economic exclusion, but also encompasses social, spatial, political and even gender-

based exclusions. The harshest critic for Spivak’s subaltern condition is in regard to the

‘voice’ that they often represent. In particular the Western academics’ stance that largely

gather information on subalterns then write it ‘scientifically’ and expects it to be accepted

as truth by many parties. They act as if they represent the voices of the subalterns.

Long before then, Gramsci (1971) advised civil societies to form groups and to be totally

involved in political contests by challenging the state and taking over power (Smith, 2010).

Civil societies which created these groups and were independently and autonomously

organised became known as Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) (Nugroho, 2007; Hadi,

2010). CSOs can exist in the form of professional Non-Governmental Organisations

(NGO), extended families, religious groups, social movements, community-based

organisations, labour union and professional associations (Lewis and Kanji, 2009).

Slowly, CSOs are playing a larger role in the state’s effort for democracy (Fakih, 1999;

Hadi, 2010), even taking part in development programmes (Pollard and Court, 2005) and

alleviating crucial issues such as poverty, the environment (Nugroho and Amalia, 2010),

as well as marginal issues (Sudarno and Utomo, 2018).

For this reason, CSOs have an in-depth knowledge (Lettieri, Borga and Savoldelli, 2004;

Nugroho and Amalia, 2010) that can be used to mediate between the community and the

10 Article 33 of the Regulation of the Ministry of the Home Affairs 110/2016 implies that marginalised communities are classified as village communities. Regulations of the Ministry of Home Affairs 110/2016 concerning Village Consultative Body is a derivative regulation of Government Regulation 43/2014 concerning Regulations for Implementation of Law Number 2014 concerning Villages (PP 43/2014). PP 43/2014 itself has been amended by Government Regulation Number 47 of 2015 concerning Amendment to Government Regulation Number 43 of 2014 concerning Regulation of the Implementation of Law Number 2014 concerning Villages (PP 47/2015).

32

government (Hadi, 2010). Because of their experience and expertise, CSOs are included

in the policymaking process (Pollard and Court, 2005; Court et al., 2006; Akatiga, 2010;

Nugroho, Carden and Antlov, 2018).

Spivak’s critics on the use of knowledge of the marginalised seems to hold valid today; in

order for the local knowledge of the community to become a strong source in evidence-

based policymaking, it needs to come as information (Nugroho, Carden and Antlov, 2018).

Sadly, it is still difficult to accept local knowledge of marginalised communities. In other

words, participation in policymaking by marginalised communities are still faced with a

number of challenges. The policy process that is not inclusive creates policy outcomes

that are irrelevant to the needs of the community. Over and over again, marginalised

communities are pushed to the edge. Hence, CSOs need to reinforce their capacity to

gather the people’s insights through thorough and accurate evidence-searching.

33

34

METHODOLOGY

3

35

3.1. Observations 39

3.2. Field Notes 39

3.2.1 CIPG Facilitators 39

3.2.2 Local Facilitators 39

3.3. Focused Discussions 40

3.4. Surveys 40

3.5. One-on-one Interview 40

3.6. Bellwether Interview 41

3.7. Outcome Harvesting 41

36

This series of  programme is an  action research, because other than data collection

and analysis, we also carried out interventions. According to Koshy (2005, p.8), “action

research as a constructive enquiry, during which the researcher constructs his or her

knowledge of specific issues through planning, acting, evaluating, refining and learning

from the experience.” To put it simply, action research is a “practice-changing practice”

(Kemmis, 2009 in Kemmis, 2014). Basic characteristics of action research include its

practicality, its ability to generate change, its cyclical process and participative approach.

   

Image 1 Action Research Spiral

Source: Kemmis et al. (2014, p.19)

Metodologi

3

37

An action research consciously and intentionally plans to create social changes and

improvements as an outcome at the end of the research. In this case, the researcher’s

involvement is not founded on the impartiality, but rather his or her partiality on the

research subject the researcher wishes to empower. The quality of action research

depends on the reflective sensitivity of the researcher – where data collection, analysis

and interpretation will all be mediated by his or her own feelings and identity. Here, the

researcher as a whole is a ‘research instrument’ (Somekh, 2006).

In this research, we performed interventions as a guide to improve the research and

advocacy capacity of six Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in Eastern Indonesia11

• Desk study

• Snowballing

• Interview

• Field visit

• CREAME training

• CSOs doing action research

• Remote assistancies from CIPG and local facilitators

• Reflection after research phase

• Advocacy workshop

• CSOs writing popular articles

• CSOs composing policy papers

• Remote assistancies from CIPG and local facilitators

• Face to face meeting with CIPG and local facilitators

• VOICE programme reflection workshop

Goa

l Atta

inm

ent

Rese

rach

Pha

se

Advo

cacy

Pha

se

Refle

ctio

n Ph

ase

Figure 5 CIPG Intervention Stages

Source: Authors

We carried out this intervention in four stages comprising goal attainment, research

phase, advocacy phase and reflection phase. We implemented the intervention on six

partners in South Sulawesi, West Nusa Tenggara, and East Nusa Tenggara. We will

elaborate more on this intervention in Chapter 4.

11 CSO profiles can be seen in Appendix B.

38

In general, we categorised the partners using the CSO spectrum discussed by Nugroho

and Amalia (2010) with some modifications. This categorisation will help us understand

the position of the partners and in doing an analysis of the organisation.

Mobilisation & Grass-root Politics “Developmentalist”

• AcSI • Pasirputih Community • AMAN Sumbawa

• Maupe Maros • Yabiku • Yasalti

Figure 6 CSOs Activism Spectrum

Source: Authors

Without undermining the role of CSOs, this spectrum is used to observe the characteristics

of each CSO’s activities. Organisations leaning towards mobilisations and grassroots

politics tend to gravitate towards the people who are ‘lower’ in the society to create a

collective movement, otherwise known as community-based organisations (Lewis and

Kanji, 2009). Meanwhile, developmentalists are development-oriented, for instance in

poverty alleviation and environmental protection. Moreover, some of these organisations

engage the community through education and training (Nugroho, 2010; Nugroho and

Amalia, 2010) otherwise known as Professional NGOs (Lewis and Kanji, 2009).

When considering the definition above and the traits of the CSOs, three of these lie on the

developmentalist end of the spectrum, and they are Maupe Maros, Yabiku and Yasalti.

They have a tendency to work to find solutions from existing problems surrounding the

organisations, such as poverty, gender equality or incomplete education. The structure

of these organisations is often vertical, with different working teams.

There are two CSOs that are “grassroots” oriented: AcSI and Pasirputih Community.

They are formed to encourage collective actions for issues that impact the life order in

the community. Their organisations are horizontally structured, and almost everyone can

do anything.

The other CSO, AWMAN Sumbawa, lies in the middle of the two. As AMAN Sumbawa is

39

a regional branch from Central AMAN (AMAN Pusat located in Jakarta), it is vertically

structured. However, as their work is concerned with collective movements, we

positioned AMAN Sumbawa in the middle of the spectrum.

To support this action research, we collected qualitative and quantitative data. We

employed seven data-collecting methods, which are observation, field notes, focused

discussions, survey, one-on-one interviews, bellwether interviews, and outcome

harvesting.

3.1 Observations

To gain an in-depth understanding and as part of intervention documentation, we

used ‘research log’ for our observation notes.12 Every CIPG facilitators recorded their

observations for all situations that happen in the field during supervision. This was used

to capture a few occurrences in the field that would not otherwise be recorded in the

interviews or surveys with our partners. Our observations were carried out between

August 2017 until July 2019.

3.2 Field Notes

3.2.1 CIPG Facilitators

Along with our research logs, CIPG facilitators also took minutes of every face-to-face

meeting with the CSOs. During the intervention period, there were 5 face-to-face visits in total

between CIPG facilitators and each CSO, including one field visit in the preparation phase,

two visits in the research phase, and two visits in the advocacy phase.

3.2.2 Local Facilitators

Local facilitators guiding CSOs during the research and advocacy phase also took notes

on the development of CSOs. Their CSO development notes were presented regularly to

CIPG every 2-3 months during the intervention period.

12 Facilitators’ research logs are available upon request.

40

3.3 Focused Discussions

Focused discussions between CIPG facilitators in each region were carried out in order

to exchange insights that may not have been observed by other facilitators. These

discussions took place regularly every month during the intervention period.

3.4 Surveys

We completed two types of surveys:

1. The survey for CSO leaders to understand their views about this programme.

CSO leaders were asked to fill in forms that then be emailed at the end of the

intervention period.

2. The survey for CSO members involved was to understand the challenges and

lessons they gained from CIPG’s intervention. Every member of the CSOs who

took part were asked to fill in a form on the spot.

The results of the survey were immediately organised for analysis.

3.5 One-on-one Interview

One-on-one interviews were carried out in order to obtain additional information directly

from CSO members who took part in this programme. The interviews were performed by

CIPG facilitators to each CSO members in their regional responsibility accordingly at the

end of the intervention period (April 2019). The results of the interviews were recorded

and condensed into interview summaries to be analysed.

41

3.6 Bellwether Interview

We carried out bellwether interviews with policymakers to fathom their policy agenda

in the three regions. This method was first developed by the Harvard Family Research

Project and used by the Overseas Development Institute in the module ‘Research and

Policy in Development’ (Young et al., 2014).

3.7 Outcome Harvesting

Outcome Harvesting (OH) allows the evaluators, grant organisers, and managers

to identify, formulate, verify and understand the result. Outcome is the positive or

negative changes that could be observed in the agenda, activities, relationships,

policies, or practices of actors outside of the programme (could be individuals, groups,

community, or institutions), relevant to the Theory of Change programme, and resulting

from programme contributions – in part or wholly, directly or indirectly, accidental or

deliberate. These changes to other actors occur outside of the hands of the programme

organisers, but is connected to the interventions by programme organisers, although the

intervention itself does not directly create change.13

OH is carried out to see how far CIPG interventions that have been completed contribute

to the result of what is expected to happen. OH took place in March 2018 and April 2019.

13 VOICE. (2018) Identification and formulation of outcome statements: Guidance for “Harvesters”. Outcome Harvesting for VOICE, 20-21 March 2018 in Jakarta.

42

PRESENTING EVIDENCE AND INCLUSIVE PARTICIPATION TO CHANGE POLICIES

4

43

4.1. Explore, Test, and Reflect 46

4.1.1. Explore 48

4.1.2. Test 55

4.1.3. Reflect 57

4.2. Share & Apply 58

4.3. Empower, Influence, & Amplify 60

4.3.1. Empower 60

4.3.2 Influence 64

4.3.3. Amplify 69

44

“North Lombok AMANDA plays a significant role in bringing forward indigenous people’s concerns. AMANDA has been considered to

represent the voices of the people. Pasirputih has not done as much, but they brought a policy paper the other day that was helpful. New issues were brought forth, one of which was local culture to attract

tourism. But the focus is still on local culture, not on tourism.”

(Arnowadi, Head of Art and Culture from the Department of Culture and Tourism

North Lombok, West Nusa Tenggara, interviewed on 26/07/2019)

“Citizen participation is very important, especially on issues on women and children that have been so far been considered to be domestic, family and paternalistic issues. We came to regard the

significance of their opinions, so that policies can correspond to the problems and condition of the community.”

(Muhammad Idrus, Head of the Department of the Protection of

Women and Children, District of Maros, South Sulawesi, interviewed on

31/07/2019)

Presenting Evidence and Inclusive Participation to Change Policies

4

45

During the supervision period, we continually reflected on lessons from the stages of

interventions implemented. The two pieces of the interviews above depicts what will be

portrayed in this chapter. Armed with knowledge they thoroughly collected, CSOs were

able to make changes concerning the existence of marginalised communities. Action

research allowed CSOs to learn from the process that they experienced, towards the

policy advocacy they desire.

Using the Theory of Change framework with the focus on some of its aspects (see

discussion on Theory of Change), this chapter will elaborate further how CIPG developed

the capability of CSOs to gather evidence concerning marginalised communities and

use it for policy advocacy.

In the beginning, we understood that every partner chosen has research experiences,

proven by research documents with their logos, and one partner had even published

a book based on their research. From here, we assumed that these partners have a

basic understanding in conducting research, including how to organise their mindset

and analyse their data.

In our first meeting, we asked the participants to write down their organisational and

individual skills. During training, we reviewed the ability and knowledge of every research

training participants. From this, we gained the understanding that each of our partners

had different ideas on what they mean about research experiences.

46

Table 1 Research Experiences of CSOs’ Staff

Staff Research Experience

AcSI Facilitating participatory action research in a village

Maupe Maros Data collector/enumerator for research done by a third party (donor or otherwise), institution’ name included in the research report

Pasirputih Community Unstructured research for cultural activities

AMAN Sumbawa Accompanied a third-party institution during field work

Yabiku Data collector/enumerator for research done by a third party (donor or otherwise), institution’ name included in the research report

Yasalti Data collector/enumerator for research done by a third party (donor or otherwise), institution’ name included in the research report

Source: Authors

The table above reflects one of our findings on our partners’ limitations in research-based

policy advocacy. To hone their abilities in conveying research-based policy advocacy,

CIPG performed a series of interventions explained in the following subchapters.

4.1 Explore, Test and Reflect

In line with the action research spiral, we demonstrate that explore-test-reflect series

also takes the shape of a spiral; it is a process that runs continuously. Although in

principle this is so, we decided to divide the research phase as ‘explore’, the advocacy

phase as ‘test’, and the reflections as ‘reflections’ phase.

Chronologically, the very first step taken by the CIPG team is planning interventions

for CSOs in order to develop their capability in evidence-based policy advocacy. The

interventions are expected to influence the pattern of interactions between CSOs,

marginalised communities and governments when working together to create inclusive

47

policies while using local knowledge from marginalised communities. The plan for the

series of interventions by CIPG can be seen in the figure below:

Improving research capability & evidence based policy advocacy*

Intervention by VOICE CIPG 2017-2019 (plan)*CIPG works together with

selected local facilitators

Processing information into

knowledgePolicy advocacy based on knowledge compiled

Knowledge exchange

Giving information

CIPG

Local CSOs

Community

Local Government

Figure 7 VOICE CIPG Team 2017-2019 Intervention Plan

Source: Authors

This intervention was prepared with the aim to develop research capabilities and evidence-

based policy advocacy. The CIPG team comprises of three facilitators, each responsible

for one region and is helped by a selected local facilitator.14 We implemented the

interventions on the local CSOs in the hope that every CSOs will exchange knowledge with

their marginalised communities. In the research phase, the marginalised communities

provided information to CSOs. Then, the CSOs transformed the information into local

knowledge and returned this knowledge to the marginal groups. After which, CSOs and

the marginalised communities would carry out policy advocacy on the local government

based on the information they have collected. Once they have accomplished this, CIPG

and CSOs perform a collective reflection.

14 Please see Appendix B for information on the profiles of CSOs and local facilitators

48

4.1.1 Explore

Through the research capability development interventions, CSOs are expected to be

able to process information from the constituents to become local knowledge. We

expect that the knowledge they have gathered is used in engaging the constituents

during policy advocacy. CSOs are also expected to provide lessons and build awareness

about how such knowledge can be used by marginalised communities as evidence for

policy advocacy concerning their existence. The figure below explains the intervention

flow performed by CIPG and local facilitators, as well as the steps CIPG expects to see

in the research phase:

CREAME: Draft research proposal

Staf consults with internal

organisation

Preparing tools for data

collection

Proposal revision/

finalisation

Face-to-face meeting with

CIPG

Long-distance assistance from

CIPG

Data gathering

Short-distance assistance from local facilitators

Research result finalisation

First compilation of results

Data coding

Analysis

Figure 8 Intervention Flow during Research Phase

Source: Authors

The first exercise for the research phase is Critical Research Methodology (CREAME)

training. CREAME is a training method that CIPG often implements to develop critical

research ability. Through CREAME, we discussed research topics chosen by each

CSO, from their comprehension, their approach to conducting research, and how to

communicate their research. CREAME training was undertaken in Makassar for five

49

days between 5-8 December 2017. For CREAME, CIPG requested each organisation to

send two of their members from the partners that could be involved long term in every

phase and are committed to attending the VOICE programme to the end.

The materials given during CREAME are research design training, sharing sessions on

the importance of advocacy based on research findings, and sessions to gain in-depth

understanding of issues the partners had chosen for their research, as shown in the

table below:

Table 2 CREAME Training Materials

No Materials Goals

1 Introduction to CREAME For partners to understand the goal of Critical Research Methodology training

2 Sharing session: The Importance Research-based Advocacy

For partners to understand that research with valid data can support their advocacy

3 Research Understanding For partners to understand different types of research and what is meant by ‘research’

4 Conducting Research For partners to understand different research methods, how to collect and process data, and how to write scientifically

5 Practice: Research Design Partners, guided by presenters, begin to put together research proposals and decide on their constituents

6 Capita Selecta: Cooperative Contributions towards Inclusive Development

For partners to gain references and insights from community-level research

7 Presenting Research Findings For partners to understand the strategy that could be taken when communicating their research findings and presenting them in policy advocacy

Source: Authors

50

After attending CREAME training, each CSO was asked to continue the research proposal

they started during training. Drafting research proposals gave time for CSOs to carry out

field observations, to dig deeper on their assumptions concerning issues of marginalised

communities. This was to increase the objectivity of their research questions.

CIPG facilitators supervised the research proposal drafting process through long-

distance supervision, via communications through phone calls, emails and chat

applications such as WhatsApp.

Once the research proposals were finished and approved by CIPG facilitators, CSOs

began their data collection in the field. During data collection and analysis, CSOs were

supervised by a CIPG facilitator and a local facilitator. The supervision was carried

through long-distance consultations and scheduled face-to-face meeting every three

months. The purpose of face-to-face meetings was to see how their research has

developed, while consultations on methodologies, data collection and analysis, and

writing techniques were conducted long-distance using other communication channels.

After data collection and analysis phase, partners were given the time to incorporate

their findings into their research reports. The same supervision methods as those during

data collection and analysis were conducted, which are long-distance consultation and

scheduled meetings every three months. Report writing was done between April–June

2018. A written research report was compulsory for the partners to prove they have

completed their field research. After research phase, we held a series of reflection

exercises along with an advocacy workshop. During this reflection, partners are expected

to review their research processes and implementations, to evaluate the effectiveness

of the exercises, and to understand the essence of the research experience.

In undertaking a scientific research, researchers (CSOs) were required to validate their

data to prove the authenticity of their findings. This was to prevent bias in the analysis.

Bias is an important subject in research, as the social reality reflected in the report can

be influenced by the researcher’s perspective, a respondent’s single perspective, or any

threats that may have arisen during the research process. Whether it is a qualitative or

mixed-method research, bias can occur when the researcher is unable to distinguish the

difference between emic and etic paradigms (Sanday, Peggy, 2008) influenced by the

51

researcher’s background and the limitations in obtaining data (Zamili, 2015).

We cannot ignore the potential for analytical bias that could occur when CSOs carry out

their data analysis. Of course, this is concerned with the three issues discussed previously.

The researcher’s circumstance as a CSO member who possesses organisational values

will contribute towards the etic paradigm (researcher’s point of view), while limitations

in obtaining data will affect the emic paradigm (natives’ point of view).

The supervision conducted in this process had to become more intensive to prevent

CSOs from misunderstanding phenomena. There had been at least two cases to

illustrate this point. The first was Maupe Maros’s potential for emic bias, as a domestic

violence perpetrator’s result was still insufficient. At the time, the perpetrator stated that

their reason for violence is to “educate the victim to obey her husband”. In their report,

Maupe Maros wrote:

H admitted that he committed violence against his wife because he was upset that she

continued to work even when they were grieving, and he wanted his wife to be more

obedient towards him.

(Maupe Maros’s Research Report, 28 August 2018)

The researcher was disheartened when they heard this, but the facilitator realised that

this reality is biased. Should we neglect who the victim is and listen to their voice? After

finding out the victim, the researcher carried out an interview. In the first conversation,

the victim seemed to validate the perpetrator’s statement:

“I accept that I was shouted at because maybe I did something wrong. I am sure he

does love me. After he hit me, he would stroke my forehead and kiss me when I sleep.

Whenever I say I’m going to leave him, he would cry while kneeling and bowing in front of

me, promising me that he wouldn’t do this anymore... he even knelt in front of my mum...”

(Interview with Her, not her real name, 09/07/18)

52

However, this situation should not automatically become the main focus. Researchers

ought to learn that to unveil the real phenomenon, they should give the victim the

opportunity to talk in a safe and comfortable environment. It took six hours before the

victim revealed that she was experiencing mental and physical abuse since the beginning

of their marriage:

The victim, Her, experienced mental and physical abuse from her husband in the form

of cheating and beating. Since the beginning of the marriage, Her had tried to leave the

perpetrator, but her mum stopped her. “Think about it first, it would be bad for your children,”

her mother said when Her expressed her feelings. When the perpetrator fell ill after he

abused the victim, she again stated that she wanted to leave him, but her mother stopped

her again, “You will add to your sins if you leave your husband while he’s unwell.”

Her explained that while she was living in Sorong, many people saw her being beaten with a

bamboo stick and being dragged to her house, “At the time, they all cried, they felt sorry for

me. I was covered in blood, but no one was brave enough to help, my husband was always

threatening them.”

(Maupe Maros’s Research Report, 28 August 2018)

Only after conducting an in-depth interview did the researcher understand that reality

is not based on just one person’s point of view. Even if it requires more time and effort,

analytical biases arising from lack of data to understand the emic paradigm can be

disregard by finding other relevant data.

Analytical bias arising from the etic paradigm that can promote the researcher’s point of

view as a point of reference is a wholly different story. They adopt common perspectives

and hypotheses and applied it to their research. It was a complex challenge for this

action research, because the essence of this research is to understand the views of the

marginalised communities, not the CSOs.

The second example of analytical bias is the potential of etic bias by AMAN Sumbawa.

As a local CSO under the shadow of a national organisation, AMAN Sumbawa stood at

a crossroad; should they continue the mandate of their organisation so that the state

acknowledge the existence of diverse indigenous populations in Indonesia (Erni, 2015),

or to channel the real aspirations of the marginalised group they are assisting, Cek

Bocek?

53

Cek Bocek Selesek Reen Suri (otherwise known as Cek Bocek), is a community of

indigenous populations represented by AMAN Sumbawa. In her notes, one of the CIPG

facilitators wrote:

Meanwhile, the second partner is the Cek Bocek Community through AMAN Sumbawa. The

face is a conflict for their indigenous land with the company Newmount, which is still very

much ongoing. The Cek Bocek indigenous community is concerned about ‘narrating’ the

history of their indigenous community so that their existence can be acknowledged. AMAN

Sumbawa, who assists the Cek Bocek indigenous community, are actively advocating the

issues of cultural conflict at the local to national level. What is needed is for policymakers

to know of the existence of this community, and that they can find a road to advocacy

between businesses, local governments and that particular indigenous community.

(Research notes, Daya Sudrajat, CIPG Facilitator, West Nusa Tenggara, 4 October 2017)

From the CSOs’ initial examination, we were under the impression that Cek Bocek’s

aspiration is to find a middle way to end this conflict by ‘narrating’ the history of Cek

Bocek from a verbal to a written one, so people are aware of their existence and advocate

this to policymakers.

Sadly, the concept of indigenous community in Indonesia is still not standardised. To

this day, the Draft Laws on Customary Law Community planned since 2013 is yet to be

passed. Although President Joko Widodo has released a Presidential Decree to create

a governmental team to discuss these Draft Laws with DPR RI (Alaidrus, 2019), the

relevant ministries has yet to arrive on the same definition.15

The Ministry of Social Services use different terms: alienated community (in Indonesian:

masyarakat terasing), backward community (in Indonesian: masyarakat terbelakang), and

alienated indigenous community (in Indonesian: masyarakat adat terasing) (Presidential

Decree 186/2014 and Decree by the Ministry of Social Affairs 6/2000).16 The Ministry of

15 This Presidential Decree was released on 9 March 2018 through Ministry of State Secretariat No.B-186/M.Sesneg/D-1/HK.00.03/03/2018. The government team consists of six ministries: Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Ministry of Agrarian and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency, Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Ministry of Villages, Disadvantaged Regions and Transmigration, and Ministry of Law and Human Rights. This government team is coordinated by the Minister of Home Affairs, Tjahjo Kumolo. The on bill on masyarakat hukum adat (or customary law community for the internationally used term indigenous people) was included in the 2019 National Legislation Program (Prolegnas). Until now, the bill has not been passed (https://www.medcom.id/nasional/peristiwa/yNL7zQ2K-aliansi-masyarakat-adat-kecewa-ruu-adat-gagal-disahkan).

16 Presidential Regulation 186/2014 on Social Empowerment of Remote Indigenous Communities revokes Presidential Decree.111/1999 concerning the Development of Social Welfare of Remote Indigenous Communities. The Regulation of the Ministry of Social Affairs 6/2002 on Guidelines for Implementing Remote Indigenous Community Empowerment.

54

Environment and Forestry uses the characteristic description of indigenous communities

according to the Ruling of the Constitutional Court No.35/PUU-/2012 that acknowledges

the existence of indigenous forests, but the existence of the indigenous people and their

territory is decided using local regulations. The Ministry of Agriculture uses the term

indigenous community (Law 39/2004 on Agriculture) and Ministry of Home Affairs uses

the term indigenous villages (Law 6/2014 on Villages).

However, since the beginning of the research, AMAN Sumbawa already dedicated

themselves to use the research findings as the basis for advocating the recognition of

the Cek Bocek indigenous community when their advocacy should, in fact, be based on

the research findings, the real existing phenomena, not one that is created by the point

of view of a part of a group. An initial assumption relating to what phenomena they want

to research is important, however, the researcher cannot use the results of the research

before they even begin. From here, etic bias could potentially occur.

In anticipation for these biases greatly affecting our research series activities, we had

intensive discussions while also revealing the types of research that use the emic

paradigm as facts. For instance, reviewing what indigenous people meant by the Cek

Bocek community. Although it was challenging in the beginning, in the end, AMAN

Sumbawa was able to ‘narrate’ Cek Bocek’s history in its report.

Contrary to emic paradigm bias potential due to data limitation, the etic paradigm

approach in qualitative research is harder to eliminate as it is influenced by the

researcher’s background.

In the context of this VOICE intervention, the backgrounds of CSO members we

supervised were reasonably varied and from different organisational styles.17 However,

among everything, we learned that opening up ourselves to learning process can be a

driving factor behind a researcher’s paradigm changes. Although changing paradigms

is a complicated matter that needs a sufficient amount of time and knowledge, it is still

necessary in order to show partiality to the truth.

17 CSO Profiles can be seen in Appendix B.

55

4.1.2 Test

After the research phase, CIPG continued the next main phase: advocacy. The figure

below explains the flow of interventions taken by CIPG and local facilitators, as well the

steps CIPG hopes to achieve in the advocacy phase.

Advocacytraining

Staff consults with internal organisation

Strategy finalisation for

advocacy

 Drawing research conclusions

Face-to-face meeting with

CIPG

Long-distance assistance from

CIPG

Preparing tools for advocacy

Short-distance assistance by

local facilitators

Finalising policy paper

Compiling policy paper &

publishing of popular article

Drafting popular articles into

research paper

Writing 2 popular articles

Figure 9 Intervention Flow during Advocacy Phase

Source: Authors

The first step in this advocacy phase was a workshop. Advocacy workshops were held

between 28-31 August 2019 in Jakarta with speakers from both inside and outside

CIPG. The goal of the advocacy to have it as a reference for advocacy exercises and

to sharpen CSO’s advocacy strategies. Our goals from the workshop was for CSOs

to be able to process the evidence they have collected and produce more varied and

creative advocacy tools. There were four stages of the advocacy workshop: seminar and

presentation, practice, discussion and Q&A, and participation. These four methods are

explained below:

56

Table 3 Advocacy Workshop Material

No Method Goal Materials

1 Seminar and presentation

Materials to be given by a facilitator. CSOs to broaden their knowledge and improve their advocacy strategies, CSOs to receive a new reference for producing creative advocacy tools.

An introduction to advocacy planning, policy analysis, actors mapping, visit to Jakarta Legal Aid Institution.

2 Practice CSOs to directly use aids; create a draft for the activity outcome to facilitate CSOs’ understanding of the materials

Drafting public campaigns; popular writing I and II; making use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT); drafting policy papers and fact sheets

3 Discussions and Q&A

CSOs to participate in the discussion and Q&A session; to discuss their experience and ask questions on advocacy planning

Let's share I and II; Introduction to advocacy planning; policy analysis; actor mapping; visit to Jakarta Legal Aid Institution; drafting public campaigns; popular writing I and II; making use of Information and Communications Technology; drafting policy papers and fact sheets

4 Participation CSOs to give ideas and suggestions as individuals or an organisation, exchange experience and knowledge to other partners

Tailored

Source: Authors

This advocacy phase started in September 2018 and ended in April 2019. In this phase,

CSOs prepared advocacy instruments in the form of policy papers and two popular

articles. From the result of the draft in advocacy strategy, partners were asked to discuss

the outcome of their strategies with marginalised communities, in order for CSOs, along

with marginalised communities, to be involved in hearings as well as in discussions with

their respective local governments.

CSOs were supervised by CIPG facilitators and local facilitators through long-distance

consultation and face-to-face meeting in their policy paper and fact sheets-writing

stage. CIPG continued the collaboration with local facilitators during research for

local facilitator advocacy. In this stage, the engagement of constituents is expected to

57

continue while drafting the policy paper recommendations and in how partners raise the

issue in the two popular writings.

4.1.3 Reflect

In two years, the relationships between the six CSOs with their different styles, work area,

and experience have created a positive outcome. We gathered this from the feelings they

communicated in the face-to-face meetings during the research and advocacy phase,

and during the End of Programme Reflections workshop.

The aim of this workshop was for CSOs to review the process, research practice,

advocacy, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the activities and understand the essence

of carrying out the research phase and the advocacy phase.

Table 4 Reflections Workshop Materials

No Methods Goals

1 One-on-one interviews Partners to identify their goals and obstacles individually

2 List of achievements Partners to identify what they have achieved, qualitatively or quantitatively

3 VOICE Journey Map Partners can express the learning process from the VOICE programme through their journey map.

Source: Authors

The purpose of this phase was for partners to share their experience, to reflect on their

goals and the ability they gained during the advocacy and research phases, so that

individual members of the organisations can appreciate themselves and what they have

achieved.

In the last exercise, all participants expressed their gratitude for being able to get to

know the other five organisations. For instance, this is what was said by Ijtihad from

Pasirputih:

58

“One of the most valuable experiences I gained from this VOICE Programme is meeting my

peers from other organisations, while the discussions about different issues allows me to

keep on learning.”

(Ahmad Ijtihad, VOICE ‘Journey Map’ session, 30 April 2019)

Or as Idawani from Maupe said:

“I learned from AcSI that we have to prepare a few different presentations depending who

we are presenting it to, and now I know that the presentation we prepared may not be used

in the end because of the condition in the field that is different from our expectation.”

(Idawani Latief, VOICE ‘Journey Map’ session, 30 April 2019)

Aside from understanding and learning from one another, the ability to write concise

and easy-to-digest reports, policy papers, and popular articles is essential. In the

beginning of each phase, we carried out a series of training exercises, one of which is a

writing exercise (see section on Test and Explore). Writing supervision by CIPG or local

facilitators continued throughout the programme so that partners can produce concise

and easy-to-understand pieces of writing. Supervision during the VOICE programme

created changes, especially in the partners’ writing ability. Evidently, improvement in

writing ability was also felt by our partners.

“Writing used to be difficult for me. However, after my writing was published in local media,

I’m now confident that I can write and I’m happy.”

(Yanti Rambu Babang, VOICE ‘Journey Map’ session, 30 April 2019)

Thus, the long supervision process during VOICE programme created positive changes,

particularly in the partners’ writing ability.

4.2 Share & Apply

During the workshop in each phase, we provided a range of research and advocacy

related materials. For instance, during the advocacy workshop, our partners received

materials not only on advocacy strategy to use on policymakers, but also on how to use

other media, such as photos and films, to bring CSOs’ mission to a larger audience. AcSI

59

worked with Ika Mahardhika, a local female film director to produce a film documentary

on the lives of Pasar Terong merchants.

The issues of female merchants who are poor and susceptible should not be the focus

of just one organisation, but also that of the local and/or national community, because

this issue is prevalent in every corner of Indonesia. One of the elderly merchants who still

active in Pasar Terong is a lady called Daeng Ranu, 80 years old. She sells mixes of herbs

and spices that cannot be found anywhere else, as they are slowly becoming obsolete.

However, due to the limits of her knowledge, she can only sell items that are “her age”.

Ika Mardhika is known as a female film director who creates film documentaries on strong

female figures, one of which is Charlotte Salawati Daud, an activist from the Indonesian

Women Movement (Gerakan Wanita Indonesia) who became the first female mayor

in Indonesia in 1949. Films by Ika Mahardhika are frequently shown in Film Festivals in

Makassar and Jakarta.

With Ika Mahardhika’s help in making a film documentary about female merchants (Daeng

Ranu in particular) during AcSI’s advocacy process, we expected this issue to gain more

attention from local and/or national community, and that the voices of the marginalised

will be heard far and wide. This supports the principle “Nothing About Us, Without Us”,

CIPG’s aim to encourage inclusive participation, and VOICE Global’s outcome in increasing

political participation.

(CIPG’s Outcome Harvesting Document by Ferzya as a harvester, 19/04/2019)

From the six VOICE partners, four of them created a press/media release as the popular

articles that we requested in the advocacy phase. Partners took advantage of the media

release to also generate public discussion by inviting local media. Public discussions

were performed by Pasirputih and Yabiku.

Pasirputih held their public discussion on 13 April 2019 in North Lombok. It was attended

by a number of local communities and cultural observers from the District of North

Lombok. The discussion was held in order for the issue presented by Pasirputih to gain

a larger audience and the attention of other communities in North Lombok. Additionally,

to initiate collaborations with other communities in North Lombok.18

Aside from Pasirputih, Yabiku’s partner in East Nusa Tenggara also held a public

discussion on 8 and 9 August 2019. It served the purpose of presenting Yabiku’s research

18 Media coverage on this activity can be found at http://www.savananews.com/2019/04/pembangunan-pariwisata-budaya-di-lombok.html?m=1

60

findings about the increase of domestic violence in Kuanek Village, North Central Timor,

East Nusa Tenggara. Yabiku took this opportunity to explain the factors and the practices

of domestic violence in Kuanek Village and Maubesi Village.19

4.3 Empowerment, Influence and Amplification

4.3.1. Empowerment

Based on our experience supervising the research phase, CSOs have the opportunity to

build a strong bridge between marginalised communities and policymakers. However,

this cannot happen instantly. At the very least, CSOs need to have had experience in

conducting research. That is why in the beginning of this intervention, we picked CSOs with

1-2 research papers or policy papers. We imagined that with the experience they have, we

could focus on improving their research ability, allowing the supervision process to run

more smoothly, and CSOs can focus all their energy on the knowledge-exchange process

between them and their marginalised communities they are assisting.  

In reality, participants representing CSOs admitted that they had little to no knowledge

nor experience in research. We uncovered that the “research” they meant solely focuses

on data collection (please see Table 1 Partners’ Staff Research Experiences). When there

are collaborations between CSOs and a third party, their job is to find subjects, collect

data and provide them to the third party. Research planning and analysis are carried

out by the other party, hence CSOs have never had the opportunity to draft, formulate

question and analyse facts that they obtain from the field.

19 Media coverage on the public discussion by Yabiku in Kuanek Village can be found at http://www.timor-media.com/2019/08/08/yabiku-ntt-paparkan-hasil-riset-tentang-kdrt-untuk-warga-desa-kuanek/ and http://www.nttonlinenow.com/new-2016/2019/08/09/penanganan-kasus-kdrt-di-ttu-belum-memberikan-efek-jera-pada-pelaku/. Media coverage on the public discussion by Yabiku in Maubesi Village can be found at http://www.timor-media.com/2019/08/09/penanganan-kasus-kdrt-belum-memberikan-efek-jera/ and http://www.nttonlinenow.com/new-2016/2019/08/10/yabiku-ntt-implementasi-perda-ttu-14-2016-tentang-kdrt-belum-optimal/

61

CHALLENGES DURING THE RESEARCH PHASE

1

1

3

3

2

4

5

5

Other

Limited funds

Unfamiliar with assisted marginal groups

Long-distance assistance

Time limitation

Internal organisational activities

Team dynamics

No/Minimum experience

No/Minimum Knowledge

0

Figure 10 Challenges Faced by CSOs in the Research Phase

Source: Authors

Such conditions resulted in the individual’s limitations in critical thinking. As they are

used to taking orders, CSO members found it difficult to find patterns or to understand

cause and effect in a phenomenon. Furthermore, their understanding of the phenomenon

was dubious, as they were influenced by assumptions that are not validated by facts. In

order to sharpen their critical thinking skills, we gave CSO members freedom to choose

their own research question; this was not easy, and for several CSO members it was

difficult to even choose a question word. Some repeatedly asked the facilitator what

question word they should use. Their basic comprehension regarding the use of “how”

to ask a process, “why” for cause/reason, “when” for the time an event takes place, was

not fully rooted in every CSO.

However, among all of the challenges in the research phase, the most difficult step

faced by CSOs seemed to be data processing and analysis. They had difficulties seeing

the relationship between findings collected through different data collection methods,

such as connecting survey results with interviews. Moreover, their limited vocabulary

when commenting on or interpreting data meant it was difficult for them to explain

62

the phenomena they encountered and to formulate an abstract from the relationships

between these phenomena. This is as written by a local facilitator:

Their (CSO members’) interpretation often goes back to their ‘comfort zone’, that is back

to the conclusions that already exists among the circle of people who work on similar

research themes as them. It is possible that the lack of references (theoretical reading

and/or analysis on relevant case studies) limits their ability to translate the data they

have processed. For instance, what does it mean when the expenditure of one family is

dominated by groceries (AcSI)? Or what does it mean when a large portion of perpetrators

in violence against women are people close to them (Maupe)?

(Nurhady Sirimorok, Local Facilitator for South Sulawesi Partners, research phase

supervision reflection)

After finding the right vocabulary, CSO members needed to improve their writing skills

in order to write with good, concise and easy-to-understand language. Almost all of the

CSO members are able to express their ideas verbally, but they find it difficult to put their

ideas into words. Long-winded sentences that are repeated over and over, typos and

punctuation errors, and wrong placements of conjunctions and affixes are commonly

found in their report drafts. To illustrate, there was a report draft with one long sentence

as its first paragraph. It took 9-10 revisions to arrive at a succinct paragraph.

In another instance, members of the partner teams could not use Excel to produce a

graph and immediately asked for help from another facilitator to generate the graph of

their research paper. The facilitator evidently refused and showed how to create a graph

in Excel. Some of the partners could not use the ‘search’ feature when they forget where

they have saved the newest document. Once during a face to face meeting, we lost the

first 30 minutes of the meeting only to find their newest document. This really happened.

In East Nusa Tenggara and West Nusa Tenggara, the level of knowledge of the partners

is also different. They only understood so much that their laptops could connect to the

internet and that Google Docs could be used to create a joint report draft. This way,

nobody could claim that they cannot work on the document because they are waiting

for another member to finish their part and send the document over. Although it seems

trivial, this technical problem affected the flow of the entire research. As a result, the

time allocated for the research phase was used to teach technical skills, instead of

having discussions or reading to improve their critical thinking.

63

BENEFITS GAINED FROM RESEARCH PHASE

6

7

7

8

6

5

5

1

6

9

Other

Drawing a conclusion

Research management

Creating a research design

Analysing findings

Structured writing

Selecting the correct research method

Finding relevant data

Better familiarity of marginal groups

Data Processing

Figure 11 Benefits Gained by CSOs in the Research Phase

Source: Authors

In the end, with a lot of effort, CSO members were able to develop their ability and gained

real research experiences. We could see this from the survey we conducted at the end

of the programme. Apparently the most profound challenge, data processing, was most

memorable. Therefore, we could say that one challenge at the individual level that is

evidence gathering regarding the existence of marginalised groups, is slowly fading.

We could see the change that the partners went through in the reflection phase; they felt

empowered, particularly in their research capacity development, which means this is the

start of their role in representing marginalised groups.

One of the positive responses was received by AcSI as an organisation that successfully

gained awareness of local youth about Pasar Terong issue through popular media.

AcSI took an initiative by using social media as an advocacy instrument. Through the

Instagram account @infopasarterong, AcSI spread information about the activities in

Pasar Terong. After which, to attract the attention of local youths and to bring them

64

closer to Pasar Terong, AcSI held another initiative, Jappa-Jappa Ri Pasarra (Walking

through the Market) in December 2018. Jappa-Jappa Ri Pasarra invited the youths of

Makassar to see the other side of Pasar Terong by using citizen journalism. This activity

attracted nine local youths to join the first phase of Jappa-Jappa Ri Pasarra.

In addition to the attention received from local youths, AcSI’s initiative successfully

created awareness among merchants in Pasar Terong. The Community of Pasar Terong

Merchants (SADAR-Persaudaraan Pedagang Pasar Terong) that had long been inactive

was reactivated. SADAR was immediately involved in the discussion held by AcSI in 20

March 2019. SADAR became an active organisation to accommodate the aspirations

of merchants and to shield them against changes in policies concerning the fate of

merchants.

4.3.2 Influence

From the beginning, the VOICE programme aimed to use research as a significant part of

policy advocacy. For this reason, partners were asked to produce policy papers and popular

articles. The policy paper will be presented directly to policymakers, while their popular

articles will be sent to the media so that CSOs’ key messages can reach massive audience.

We found that writing a policy paper was another challenge for our partners. To achieve

a succinct policy paper, a strategy had to be in place in formulating the main issues and

compiling accurate recommendations. These recommendations were the result of the

analysis and data collected by partners in the research phase.

65

CHALLENGES FACED IN ADVOCACY PHASE

4

4

1

3

3

0

0

7

6

6

Limited fund

Others

Long-distance assistance

Internal organisational activities

Involvement of constituents in advocacy

No/Minimum experience of research based

Team dynamics

No/minimum ability for popular writing

Time limitation

No/Minimum ability to write a policy paper

Figure 12 Challenges Faced by CSOs in the Advocacy Phase

Source: Authors

There were also challenges when our partners experienced etic bias that occurred not

only during data analysis, but also when compiling policy paper recommendations. These

recommendations were again put forward using the organisations’ own perspectives. It

created bias, as the organisation’ agenda is not entirely compatible as the needs of the

constituents.

This happened to AMAN Sumbawa. In the policy paper writing process, AMAN Sumbawa

found it difficult to formulate recommendations based on their research findings. The

need for recognition of the indigenous community Cek Bocek does exist, this was

captured in the first stages of forming advocacy strategy during advocacy workshop in

Jakarta. Unfortunately, after the workshop, AMAN Sumbawa still found it difficult to see

which recommendations they could have done strategically.

66

Their main agenda of the recognition of the indigenous community could be achieved

through Regency Regulations/Gubernatorial Regulations/Regional Regulations on the

protection of indigenous communities. However, AMAN Sumbawa had forgotten a

significant finding in their research, to fulfil the historical aspect so that the indigenous

community Cek Bocek’s existence can be recognised. This point was missing when

formulating the policy paper recommendations; AMAN Sumbawa could have encouraged

the regional government to assist Cek Bocek indigenous community to document the

history of Cek Bocek, instead of directly demanding legal certainty from the regional

government.

Further, an important process in formulating policy paper recommendations is analysing

the potential of actors and policies that already exist in the area. This was done at the

advocacy strategy training before the advocacy phase began. Partners were asked to find

loopholes or identify which policies need to be changed so that it could be implemented

practically and can be put forward in the policy paper recommendations.

In the beginning, our partners had difficulties in seeing the opportunities in the existing

regional policies. This happened to Yabiku. To reduce cases of domestic abuse, the local

facilitator asked Yabiku to review the North Central Timor Regency Regulation Number

14 Year 2016 on the Implementation of Women’s Protection (Perda TTU 14/2016).

By reviewing this regulation, Yabiku could find articles that are important and can be

implemented in the organisation’s programmes. After several consultation, they were

able to find several articles that could be applied as programmes, one of which is the

socialisation programme stipulated in Chapter 5 Perda TTU 14/2016.

The supervision for Yabiku more or less had the same process. I had to give inputs

more than three times in order for Yabiku’s policy paper to have sharp and profound

recommendations. The main weakness of Yabiku’s policy paper was that their policy

analyses on the Regional Regulations on the Implementation of Women Protection in

North Central Timor lacked depth.

(Pantoro Tri Kuswardono, Local Facilitator for East Nusa Tenggara Partners,

Advocacy Phase Supervision Report)

67

Once they are capable in collecting evidence thoroughly and accurately (through the

whole series of research), how could they become useful as a policy reference? Pollard

and Court (2005) identified that the access to policymakers is a prerequisite for CSOs

if they wanted to change or take part in policymaking. This was proved by five of the

CSOs we supervised: AMAN Sumbawa, Pasirputih Community, Maupe Maros, Yabiku,

and Yasalti. Access to policymakers made it easier for the five partners to convey their

recommendations to policymakers, as well as allowing CSOs to take the crucial next

step, negotiations.

One aspect of locals-to-policy approach is mediating skills. Mediators should ensure

policymakers have the right level of understanding so that they can use the evidence

to formulate policies (Nugroho, Carden and Antlov, 2018). Hence, negotiations were

held between partners and policymakers so that policymakers are willing to adopt the

recommendations communicated through their policy paper.

A negotiation process successfully took place between  Yasalti  and the village

government. Yasalti is seen as a pioneer in voicing the aspirations of Lairuru Village’s

youths. Even so, Yasalti had also built a good relationship with Lairuru Village’s community

through other programmes in the previous years, such as the civil registration services

that helped believers of Marapu faith to receive citizenship documents. This approach

helped Yasalti  to come in with their advocacy. Lairuru Village officials also agreed on

Yasalti’s  recommendations to give special attention to the youths’ aspirations in the

village, by allocating a part of the village funds for educational scholarship for school-

age children and teenagers from poor families.  

Yabiku  went through a similar negotiation process. Although the central figures

in Yabiku’s  team are not members who deal with violence against women on a daily

basis, Yabiku has a special access to Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) of the

North Central Timor District, as Maria Filiana Tahu, one of Yabiku’s founders is currently

the head of Commission C in DPRD of the North Central Timor District that focuses on

women issues. This familiarity with Maria Filiana Tahu allows Yabiku to discuss points of

their policy recommendation informally before presenting their policy paper in a formal

discussion with the Head of DPRD of the North Central Timor District.

68

Box 3 Disasters, Advocacy and Awareness in Seizing Momentums

A natural disaster occurred during the research phase that directly affected VOICE partners; the

earthquake in Lombok in July 2018 with the epicentre located in the North Lombok region. This natural

disaster directly affected our partner Pasirputih, located in Pemenang, North Lombok. Even worse,

their office was badly destroyed from the earthquake. This took place during their research paper

drafting phase, entering the advocacy phase that opens with the workshop in Jakarta. Due to the

earthquake, the draft writing process was constrained, especially our partners West Nusa Tenggara,

Pasirputih and AMAN Sumbawa. This obstacle was discussed by the CIPG team with the directors,

and we came to the decision that Pasirputih will receive an extension for their research paper.

This was favourable decision for Pasirputih’s as their research relates to advocacy post-earthquake.

Their findings were concerned with protecting indigenous houses architecture, which could be

correlated with the post-earthquake events as it showed that a large number of architectures that

survived were indigenous buildings. Pasirputih took advantage of this opportunity. The regional

government also realised that this was elaborated in the policy paper by Pasirputih.

In Maros, South Sulawesi, from the Office of Women Empowerment and Child Protection,

the regional government started to  realise  the importance of data in  socialisation.

This became an opportunity for Maupe Maros to spread facts about the real conditions

of violence against women happening in the region. Socialisation using local context

can increase awareness with a location that is close and relevant to the community.  

Local political conditions became a challenge and also an opportunity for our partners

when they are carrying out their advocacy, as they were able to directly communicate

with regional governments. In the case of AMAN Sumbawa, this became an opportunity

as Sumbawa’s elected Regent has yet to hear negative perspectives about Cek Bocek and

so, will  be more open to  Cek  Bocek’s  advocacy issues. Meanwhile, in other regions

such as the East Nusa Tenggara Province and the North Lombok District, although the

regional governments have initiated an audience with our partners, there were concerns

69

that the advocacy process will stop at the official in that period20, and they would have to

start from the beginning with a newly-elected official in next period.

4.3.3. Amplify

There are some lessons that our partners could take away, for example to be more

meticulous when looking at momentums and the government’s communication

platforms. For instance, Maupe Maros took advantage of the International Women’s Day

momentum in March 2019 and held a collective action titled “Act Together, End Violence

Against Women”. Through this programme, Maupe distributed their research findings

and linked them with women issues that are the focus of Maupe’s work.21  

In contrast to the other partners, as a community-based organisation, AcSI has limited

access to local governments, but because the marginalised groups they are representing

do want to be more popular with the public, AcSI decided to  open the market as a

public space that can be accessed by various groups. For instance, AcSI carried out

a programme  with Katakerja  Library  called  Jappa-Jappa  Ri  Pasarra. They also did a

trip to the market with Makassar citizens who are curious to explore the market. AcSI

also held film exhibitions and photo exhibitions in empty spaces in the market. The aim

is that by gaining interest from local citizens for a public space, the policies can then be

effectively directed towards the marginalised communities they are representing.

A different story came from our partner in North Lombok. The policy paper presented

by Pasirputih for the Deliberation on the Cultural Development Plan (Musrenbang/

Musyawarah Rencana Pembangunan) for the North Lombok Regency successfully

brought forth a new issue in the community that focuses on tourism and local cultures

in North Lombok. During Musrenbang in March, the Bayan indigenous community, North

Lombok Kerama Village Council, North Lombok Regional Indigenous Community, Tebango

Indigenous Community agreed to adopt Pasirputih’s recommendation to record their

cultural assets and form a North Lombok asset research team. Other recommendations

20 East Nusa Tenggara Province and North Lombok Regency held local elections at the same time on 27 June 2018.

21 In this programme, Maupe worked together with a few members of Stop Child Marriage Coalition (Koalisi Stop Perkawinan Anak) and a number of media outlets, for example Gamasi FM, Inews, 99.6 RAZ FM, VE Channel and South Radar.

70

adopted by the North Lombok community was community-based research to identify

the indigenous communities in North Lombok. Moreover, the Pasirputih policy paper

gave Pasirputih a new networking opportunity with North Lombok AMANDA. Pasirputih,

along with North Lombok AMANDA, quickly explored collaboration potentials to raise

and echo the issues for the indigenous communities of North Lombok.

In the two years of our capacity building journey, we realised that marginalised groups

and CSOs are two entities that complete each other in their struggle for policy advocacy.

They both have the potential to have a voice, to communicate their voices and to

participate in policymaking.

71

72

REFLECTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5

73

5.1 Reflections 74

5.2 Recommendations 80

74

“Nothing About Us, Without Us” is a principle that should be reflected over and over

again. To what extent were “we” involved in discussions about “us”?

In this closing chapter, we would like to draw a lesson from the process of giving room

for local organisations to gather evidence, relay it to influence policymaking and ensure

marginal voices are heard.

5.1 Reflections

What we had discussed in the previous chapter paints a picture of the outcome resulting

from our partners’ efforts to relay the knowledge they produced forward to policymakers

or other stakeholders. Due to this notion, as an organisation with intensive knowledge

(Lettieri, Borga, Savodelli, 2004; Nugroho and Amalia, 2010), CSOs should place careful

attention on the knowledge they produce.

CSOs produce knowledge composed of various information they receive in their day-to-

day life. For example, from the ‘bottom’ (involvement with affiliated groups), from the

‘top’ (communication with donors), and from collegial networks they built (Nugroho and

Amalia, 2010). However, due to inefficient processing, often their knowledge is not used,

or lost under the ambiguity of everyday management, or neglected because of the long-

Reflections and Recommendations

5

75

time taken on the field, or even dispersed as a result of high rates of staff turnover

(Lettieri, Borga, Savodelli, 2004; Nugroho and Amalia, 2010).

For example, as expressed by Yasalti’s Representative:

When a member/staff of the organisation appointed to the job is less open to consult

about things in which they lack understanding, as the people in charge of the organisation

we would find difficulty in understanding what they needed.

They have not shared results from meetings or trainings that staff of they had attended,

with the leaders of the organisation, making it difficult for leaders to estimate their capacity.

Despite having a completed research report, it would be better if the appointed staff could

share their research experience and the strategy they used.

(Ninu Rambu W. Lodang, reflective questionnaire for persons in charge of the

organisation, 11/01/19)

A similar sentiment was shared by a representative of Yabiku as follows:

As far as the execution of this program is concerned, some of my expectations had been

met, for example there is a sharing process between members of the network. However,

my expectation for Yabiku NTT staffs to increase their knowledge about research has not

been fulfilled, since the appointed staffs are not capable of sharing their knowledge with

other executors yet. As part of the group, my expectation also was not met because the

research finding is still being followed up by the advocacy process, which will take time.

(Antonius Efi, reflective questionnaire for persons in charge of the organisation, 11/01/19)

Not only the problem of post-training knowledge sharing by individuals, processing

information between different divisions also created their own challenges. For example,

Yabiku has a counter-productive rule regarding data accessibility. As facilitators (CIPG

and local facilitators), we definitely would like to ensure the data used by CSOs are

relevant. In this case, Yabiku research team needed real data regarding the domestic

violence. But unfortunately, those data cannot be accessed by personnel outside of the

assistance division. Meanwhile Yabiku staffs who were responsible for the research had

never had directly involved in any activity related to the assistance division.

Staffs involved do not directly come into contact with victim assistance tasks. My

suggestion is for them to learn something new.

(Antonius Efi, reflective questionnaire for persons in charge of the organisation, 11/01/19)

76

However, if members are unable to access necessary data, how can they fulfil their

responsibilities? Within a context of evidence gathering for policy advocacy, of course

this would be crucial. Members could hold a separate research from those who assisted

the victims, but it would be better for the knowledge gathered by the victim assistance

division to be shared with members doing the research so that the result could reflect

the complete knowledge which existed within the organisation.

Generally, in the case of those CSOs supervised, knowledge could be obtained from two

channels: ‘the field’, when members work with local communities or other organisation,

or capability training activities, and from ‘the office’, when they return and interact with

other members. Unfortunately, knowledge gathered from ‘the field’ often becomes

buried inside their heads which is known as implicit knowledge. Meanwhile, this implicit

knowledge is the key they need to unlock innovation for the sake of policy changes and

social behaviour.

The three developmentalist CSOs that we supervised had a special scheme to collect

information from ‘the field’; every member returning to the office was required to relay

the information they gathered to other members (Agusnawati, interview, 23/07/19 and

Antonius Efi, interview, 30/07/19). Depending on the type of information, the activity can

be done within the organisation and involve all members or done within the scope of a

working unit. Meanwhile in grassroot organisations, thanks to their horizontal structure,

information is shared over coffee. Each time they return from the field, members would

be comfortable enough to invite others to discuss the knowledge they have learnt. This

way, the information understood by each member of the organisation tend to be more

uniform and less unbalanced (Muhammad Gozali, interview, 23/07/19 and Rachmat Aris,

interview, 06/08/10). If they were asked a question, each member would give almost the

same reply.

Although they have been implemented for a while, in reality these two mechanisms

of sharing information are not good enough to create organisational knowledge. The

tradition of sharing information orally could cause it to disappear if not well-documented,

the knowledge could even disappear as a result of a member leaving the organisation.

The departure of a member from an organisation even before the knowledge is passed

77

onto another member is a problem we often face. Due to this, information must be

gathered in written form.

Yet, this is only the beginning. After successfully gathering and storing information,

organisations also need to understand how to access/distribute and use their knowledge.

We especially found difficulty in supervising a ‘developmentalist’ partner during the

research process. Again, using the example of a problem faced by Yabiku, because of

tight organisation rules, not all knowledge, not even data, could be accessed by other

working units. Individuals who know about the relevant information are unwilling to

share with members who were doing the research, as they though it was not ‘their place’

to share knowledge (Frida Ikun, interview, 29/07/19). At this point, we understood that

implicit knowledge of an individual is difficult to access/share as long as it had not yet

become knowledge for the whole organisation.

Therefore, their homework now is to not only transform individual knowledge into

organisational knowledge, but also to change implicit knowledge into explicit knowledge,

storing it, distributing it and most importantly, using it as a tool to influence local decision-

making.

Back to the first research question that was our guide in creating a framework for

intervention, “How can marginalised communities collect evidence to influence

policies to do with their existence?” in any case, it turns out that targeted marginalised

communities still need CSOs as a bridge between them and the government. An example

is just as expressed within the document “Outcome Harvesting”:

On the 26th of March 2019, Pasirputih Community was invited by the Head of the Culture

Division of the North Lombok Culture and Tourism Authorities, West Nusa Tenggara

Province to take part in a Cultural Discussion for Development Planning (Musrenbang) to

arrange a programme for cultural development.

In previous years, the community was not involved as a stakeholder in a Cultural

Musrenbang. The invitation from North Lombok’s Culture and Tourism Authorities for

Pasirputih Community came because they had presented their research results about

traditional housing architecture in the Segenter Village during a hearing with the Head of

North Lombok Cultural and Tourism Authorities on the 19th of March 2019. The invitation

shows that they intend to seriously pursue the policy recommendations the community

presented during the hearing.

78

The involvement of Pasirputih Community in a Musrenbang is a step forward towards

inclusive development. This supports the principle of “Nothing About Us, Without Us”,

CIPG’s goal of inclusive participation, and the outcome of VOICE Global increasing political

involvement.

(Outcome Harvesting Document CIG by Ferzya and Anesthesia H. Novianda as harvester,

19/04/2019)

Although this was the case, we are aware that within its process, CSOs must gather

data from the source (emic) instead of the researcher (etic), so that we can prevent

the Spivak’s critic of ‘representation’ from occurring. For this, we would like to clarify

that CSOs here act not as marginal representation but as a bridge between marginal

communities and the government.

With that, we would also like to reiterate that should this programme reach its goal of a)

strengthening society by increasing the capabilities of civil society in compiling thorough

and accurate evidence, and b) encouraging inclusive participation through increasing

the participation of civil society in the policymaking process, particularly at the regional

level.

At the end of the process, we concluded that the six CSOs we guided successfully

compiled evidence from their research22, in twelve popular articles distributed online

and offline from the regional level to the national level, as well as six policy papers for

target government stakeholders.

22 Research findings of the six CSOs in their entirety have been published in a book titled “Echoing the Voices of the Marginalised: Stories from Eastern Indonesia” (CIPG, 2019)

79

Improving research capability & evidence based policy advocacy*

Intervention by VOICE CIPG 2017-2019 (actual)*CIPG works together with

selected local facilitators

Processing information into

knowledgePolicy advocacy based on knowledge compiled

Knowledge exchange

Giving information

CIPG

Local CSOs

Community

Local Government

Figure 13 CIPG Intervention Flow and Result

Source: Writers

As seen on figure 13, we refer back to mapping our findings (see Theory of Change).

Thus, this programme reached the primary result we liked to see, which is an increase in

the capacity of CSOs in compiling complete and accurate evidence. More than this, we

also witnessed what we expected to see, which is the participation of CSOs in the local

policy-making process. Unfortunately, because of time constraints we have not yet been

able to see what we love to see, which is the actual participation of marginal groups in

local policymaking. Thus, the implementation of ability development training needs to be

more innovative and expand to other CSOs, especially in Indonesia.

80

5.2 Recommendations

There are at least four recommendations that should be considered for implementation.

For the General Public: Inclusive participation is a way to push political decision making.

If participation within the policy formulation is accompanied by evidence relevant to the

situation, then the policy made will be more accurate and represent the needs of the

people.

For CSOs and CSO partners: Processing organisational knowledge. For those who want

to work with CSOs (and the CSOs themselves), they need – if not must – to implement

a concept of processing implicit information into explicit information. There are two

methods that we offer. First, to write the ‘field’ reports in a journal, such as a notebook or

a compilation of documents that could be read by anybody at any time. Second, if writing

has not yet become a habit, then the members could document orally through recording

a monologue of findings. The compilation of documents and recordings can be stored

when they return to the ‘office’ so that anybody who needs the information can access it.

Only with these two methods – writing or audio recordings, can implicit knowledge from

the members be stored and distributed to other members, so that it can become shared

organisational knowledge. If the member leaves or disappears from the organisation,

then the knowledge does not disappear.

For Donors: Anybody who donates to a local CSO must consider the organisation’s ability

to collect thorough evidence for a solid policy recommendation. Even though local CSOs

are not yet capable of research, their efforts to take over this task is unwise. Even in the

process, donors focusing on marginal issues must ensure CSOs gather emic data and

not etic data, so that we can end Spivak’s critic of ‘representation’. So that in the end,

marginalised communities can express their own voices, are heard, and accepted as

solid knowledge.

For Policymakers: A wise policy is not based on political choices, it is based on real

facts. The existence of marginalised communities as citizens should be recognised.

Because of this, it is important to use their voices as a foundation in decision making,

not only to increase popularity to enter parliament.

81

82

Adibroto, T. A. et al. (2013) Mapping and Evaluation of Innovation for Inclusive Development (IId) Initiatives in Indonesia. Jakarta.

Akatiga (2010) Kelompok Marjinal dalam PNPM-Perdesaan. Bandung.

Alaidrus, F. (2019) Pembahasan RUU Masyarakat Adat Mandek, Hak Warga Terabaikan, Tirto.id. Available at: https://tirto.id/de5s.

BAPPENAS and UN in Indonesia (2017) Lembar Fakta SDGs (SDGs Factsheets)

Blomkamp, E. et al. (2018) Understanding Policymaking in Indonesia: In Search of a Policy Cycle, Working Paper 26 (January). Jakarta: Knowledge Sector Initiative.

Bochel, C. et al. (2008) ‘Marginalised or Enabled Voices? “User Participation” in Policy and Practice’, Social Policy and Society, 7(2), pp. 201–210. doi: 10.1017/s1474746407004150.

Carden, F. (2009) Knowledge to policy: Making the most of development research, New Delhi & Ottawa: Sage and International Development Research Centre.

Court, J. et al. (2006) ‘Civil Society, research-based knowledge, and policy’, Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 2(3)(3), pp. 86–96.

Datta, A., Hendytio, M. K., Perkasa, V., Basuki, T. (2016a) The Acquisition of Research Knowledge by National-Level Decision Makers in Indonesia. Working Paper 16. Jakarta: Knowledge Sector Initiative. http://www.ksi-indonesia.org/files/1480577570$1$WFZL$.pdf.

Datta, A., Marpaung, L., Meirio, A., Sabri, R., Mackenzie, J.,Young, J. (2016b) The Indonesian Knowledge Sector: A Contextual Analysis. Working Paper 14. http://www.ksi-indonesia.org/files/1472809647$1$9QP0$.pdf.

Datta, A., Jones, H., Febriany, V., Harris, D., Dewi, R. K., Wild, L., Young, J. (2011) The Political Economy of Policy-Making in Indonesia: Opportunities for Improving the Demand and Use of Knowledge. Working Paper 340. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Bibliography

83

Datta, A., Nurbani, R., Satria, G., Antlov, H., Fatonie, I., Sabri, R. (2017) Policy, Change and Paradox in Indonesia: Implications for the Use of Knowledge. Jakarta: Knowledge Sector Initiative.

Davies, R. (2018) Representing theories of change: technical challenges with evaluation consequences. London. doi: 10.1080/19439342.2018.1526202.

Erni, C. (2015) ‘Tentang Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara’, (September).

van Es, M., Guijt, I. and Vogel, I. (2015) Theory of Change Thinking In Practice. The Hague. doi: 10.1007/BF02562653.

Fakih, M. (1999) ‘Masyarakat Sipil; Catatan Pembuka’, Wacana: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Transformatif, 1(1), pp. 2–6.

Geurts, T. (2011) Public Policy Making: The 21st Century Perspective.

Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the prison notebooks, Lawrence & Wishart., edited by Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith. London: Lawrence & Wishart.

Hadi, O. H. (2010) ‘Peran Masyarakat Sipil dalam Proses Demokratisasi’, Makara, Sosial Humaniora, 14(2), pp. 117–129.

Irvin, R. A. and Stansbury, J. (2004) ‘Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort?’, Public Administration Review, 64(1), p. 55. http://80-proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.mnl.umkc.edu/pqdlink?did=525731991&Fmt=7&clientId=45248&RQT=309&VName=PQD.

Jasanoff, S. (1990) The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

John, P. (2012) Analyzing Public Policy. 2nd ed. Routledge Textbooks in Policy Studies. New York: Routledge.

Jones, N., Datta, A. and Jones, H. (2009) Knowledge, policy and power. Six dimensions of the knowledge– development policy interface. http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/3790.pdf.

Kamstra, J. (2017) Dialogue and Dissent Theory of Change 2.0.

Kingdon, J. (1984) Agendas, alternatives and public policies, Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

Koshy, Valsha. (2005) Action Research for Improving Practice. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Lettieri, E., Borga, F. and Savoldelli, A. (2004) ‘Knowledge management in non-profit organizations’, Journal of Knowledge Management. doi: 10.1108/13673270410567602.

Lewis, D. and Kanji, N. (2009) Non-governmental organizations and development, Non-Governmental Organizations and Development. doi: 10.4324/9780203877074.

Louai, E. H. (2012) ‘Retracing the concept of the subaltern from Gramsci to Spivak: Historical developments and new applications’, African Journal of History and Culture, 4(1), pp. 4–8. doi: 10.5897/ajhc11.020.

Maini, R., Mounier-Jack, S. and Borghi, J. (2018) ‘How to and how not to develop a theory of change to evaluate a complex intervention: Reflections on an experience in the Democratic Republic of Congo’, BMJ Global Health, 3(1), pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000617.

Nugroho, K., Carden, F. and Antlov, H. (2018) Pentingnya Pengetahuan Lokal! Kekuasaan, Konteks

84

and Pembuatan Kebijakan di Indonesia. First. Jakarta: Knowledge Sector Initiative.

Nugroho, Y. (2007) ‘Does the Internet Transform Civil Society?’

Nugroho, Y. (2010) ‘Localising the global, globalising the local: the role of the internet in shaping globalisation discourse in indonesian NGOs’, Journal of International Development, 24(July 2010), pp. 341–368. doi: 10.1002/jid.

Nugroho, Y. (2011) ‘Citizens in Action: Collaboration, participatory democracy and freedom of information – Mapping contemporary civic activism and the use of new social media in Indonesia-Report’, Ctizens in Action, (March).

Nugroho, Y. et al. (2013) Media and Kelompok Rentan di Indonesia : Empat Kisah. Jakarta Selatan.

Nugroho, Y. and Amalia, M. (2010) ‘Exploring Knowledge Management in Civil Society Organisations: Sustaining Commitment, Advancing Movement’, Manchester Business School Working Paper. 600. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1683283.

OECD (2013) Government at a Glance 2013, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2013-en

OXFAM Novib and Hivos (2017) Exploring VOICES: Global Context Analysis.

Parkhurst, J. (2016) The Politics of Evidence: From evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence, The Politics of Evidence: From Evidence-Based Policy to the Good Governance of Evidence. doi: 10.4324/9781315675008.

Pellini, A. et al. (2018) Knowledge, politics and policymaking in Indonesia, Knowledge, Politics and Policymaking in Indonesia. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-0167-4.

Peta, I. (2018) ‘Theory of Change for Development: Understanding, Usage, and Influence’, p. 54. http://www.risk.lth.se.

Pollard, A. and Court, J. (2005) ‘How Civil Society Organisations Use Evidence to Influence Policy Processes: A literature review’, (July), p. 31.

Rogers, P. (2014) Theory of Change Methodological Briefs. Florence.

Sanday, Peggy, R. (2008) ‘The Ethnographic Paradigm’, Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), pp. 527–538.

Schmidt, Vivien A. 2010. ‘Taking Ideas and Discourse Seriously: Explaining Change Through Discursive Institutionalism as the Fourth “New Institutionalism’, European Political Science Review 2 (1): 1–25.

Setiawan, R. (2018) ‘Subaltern, Politik Etis, and Hegemoni dalam Perspektif Spivak’, Jurnal POETIKA, 6(1), p. 12. doi: 10.22146/poetika.35013.

Smith, K. (2010) ‘Gramsci at the margins: subjectivity and subalternity’, International Gramsci Journal, 1(2), p. 39.

Somekh, B. (2006) Action Research: a Methodology for Change and Development. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Spivak, G. C. (1983) Can The Subaltern Speak? doi: 10.1093/hwj/58.1.359.

Stein, D. and Valters, C. (2012) Understanding Theory of Change in International Development, Justice and Security Research Programme. doi: 10.1007/s11151-014-9439-7.

85

Stuart, E. and Woodroffe, J. (2016) ‘Leaving no-one behind: can the Sustainable Development Goals succeed where the Millennium Development Goals lacked?’, Gender and Development, 24(1), pp. 69–81. doi: 10.1080/13552074.2016.1142206.

Sudarno, R. and Utomo, S. D. (2018) Inovasi Pendataan Disabilitas.

Sutmuller, Paul M., and Ivo Setiono. (2011) ‘Diagnostic on Evidence-Based Public Policy Formulation under Decentralisation’. Jakarta: AusAID and BAPPENAS. https://www.academia.edu/8137816/Diagnostic_on_Evidence-based_Public_Policy_Formulation_under_Decentralisation.

Theiss-Morse, E. (1993) ‘Conceptualizations of good citizenship and political participation’, Political Behavior, 15(4), pp. 355–380. doi: 10.1007/BF00992103.

Thornton, P. K. et al. (2017) ‘Responding to global change: A theory of change approach to making agricultural research for development outcome-based’, Agricultural Systems. The Authors, 152, pp. 145–153. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.005.

UNDG (2015) Theory of Change: UNDAF Campanion Guidance. doi: 10.34225/jidc.2015.2.91.

Vogel, I. (2012) Review of the use of ‘Theory of Change’ in international development.

VOICE Global. (2017) A Global VOICE Theory of Change. Dokumen internal VOICE Global. Not published

Watkins, K. (2014) ‘Leaving no one behind: An agenda for equity’, The Lancet. Elsevier Ltd, 384(9961), pp. 2248–2255. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62421-6.

Weiss, C. H. (1995) ‘Nothing as Practical as Good Theory: Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families’, New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. doi: 10.1177/1356389003094007.

Women Research Institute (2005) Representasi Perempuan dalam Kebijakan Publik di Era Otonomi Daerah. Edited by L. Rahman, S. Noerdin, EdrianaAripurnami, and R. L. Yuningsih. Jakarta.

Young, I. M. (2000) Inclusion and Democracy. First, Oxford: Oxford University Press. First. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Young, J. et al. (2014) Research and Policy in Development (RAPID) Outcome Mapping. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Zamili, M. (2015) ‘Menghindari dari Bias: Praktik Trianggulasi and Kesahihan Riset Kualitatif’, LISAN AL-HAL: Jurnal Pengembangan Pemikiran and Kebudayaan, 9(2), pp. 287–289. Available at: http://journal.ibrahimy.ac.id/index.php/lisanalhal/article/view/97.

Zhang, Diane. (2015) ‘Do Local Governments in Indonesia Produce Evidence-Based Policies?’ Jakarta: Australia Indonesia Partnership for Decentralisation.

86

Appendix

A. VOICE Global Grants and CIPG Profile

VOICE grants are based upon a pledge within the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals,

“to leave no one behind (in the collective path to end poverty and inequality)”. This

programme also prioritises marginalised groups encompassing the five dimensions of

exclusion, which are social, economic, spatial, politic, and gender exclusion as explained

by the section Involving Marginal Communities and Civil Society Organisations in

Policymaking.

VOICE grants are given to projects which will impact three aspects:

• Improving productive access for resources (land, water and wealth) and work

• Improving access to social, health and educational services

• Space for political participation124

Specifically, this program aims to raise the capacity of CSOs and informal groups in

order to increase their political participation in building the main flow.

24 Dokumen Voice Analysis Context - Indonesia oleh PT. Solusi Empat Satu.

87

B. CSOs, Local Facilitators, and Locations Profile

• Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)

As explained in the section Introduction: Echoing Evidence, Action Research for Inclusive

Participation, VOICE’s main priority is to encourage the involvement of marginalised

groups in policymaking. Thus, the team feels that one of the primary targets of this

program is civil society organisations. CSOs belong to constituents and have long

worked to empower their local communities. CSOs themselves have the ability to

advocate for their constituency, and we expect they will need to be polished to improve

research capacity and policy advocacy.

CIPG recognises its knowledge is not as extensive as local organisations that had long

worked with issues regarding the empowerment of marginal communities. Considering

the view of Nugroho, Antlov, and Carden (2018), local communities could do well in

advocating policy recommendations to local authorities. This is because they have

already built relations with local leaders and have good reputations within their society.

Therefore, the role of civil organisations should not be undermined.

With these considerations in mind, CIPG chose two CSOs from each of the three regions;

East Nusa Tenggara, West Nusa Tenggara, and South Sulawesi. Every organisation

chosen works with either one or two issues within the programme’s objectives. We

collaborated with CSOs to teach the importance of research in policy advocacy. The six

CSOs are:

Active Society Institute, or AcSI, founded in 2004 in Makassar, South Sulawesi. AcSI

focuses on encouraging local communities to actively participate in local policymaking,

creating an urban youth community as well as working together with other urban

communities. Their research reviews the strategy for increasing the livelihood of female

merchants in Pasar Terong, a central market in Makassar.

Indigenous People’s Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN – Aliansi Masyarakat Adat

Nusantara) Sumbawa was founded in 1999 and is a part of the AMAN Indonesia

Network. Based in Sumbawa Besar, (Sumbawa Island, West Nusa Tenggara), AMAN

88

Sumbawa focuses their work upon advocating the rights of indigenous communities in

Sumbawa. Their research discusses the dynamics of land ownership in the indigenous

community of Cek Bocek Selesek Rensuri, also known as the Berco Tribe.

Pasirputih Community (Komunitas Pasirputih) started in 2009 by collaborating with

the youth in Pemenang, Lombok Utara (Pulau Lombok), NTB. Pasirputih focuses on

literacy and increasing participation in various local issues through art and culture as

well as documentary production. Their research reviews the effect of developing cultural

tourism on the local wisdom of the Segenter indigenous community, North Lombok.

The Amnaut Bife “Kuan” Foundation (Yabiku – Yayasan Amnaut Bife “Kuan”) was

founded in 2002 in Kefamenanu, North Timor Tengah, East Nusa Tenggara. As per its

name (in the Dawan language, Amnaut Bife “Kuan” means Care for the “Village” Women),

Yabiku focuses on women issues; in assisting women and child victims of violence

as well as female access to natural resource management and policymaking. Their

research examines the factors of domestic violence in Desa Kuanek and Desa Maubesi,

two villages with the highest occurrence of domestic violence from 2015-2017.

Society for Women (Maupe – Yayasan Masyarakat Untuk Perempuan) Maros was

founded in Maros, South Sulawesi, in 2003. Maupe endeavours to actualise gender

equality and justice, fighting for women to have active roles in economic, social, political

and cultural aspects through educating citizens about democracy and developing

alternative media for raising critical awareness. Their research analyses factors causing

violence towards women in the Maros region.

The Wali Ati Foundation (Yasalti – Yayasan Wali Ati) was founded in 2002 and is based

in Waingapu, East Sumba (Sumba Island), East Nusa Tenggara. Since their establishment

until now, Yasalti focuses on inclusive development, including access to basic services

for marginal communities, effective public services and sustainable governance. Their

research reveals the aspirations of a teenage weaver in Desa Lairuru, a village which

produces tenun hikung unique to Sumba, in which almost all villagers believe in the

minority faith Marapu.

89

• Local facilitator

CIPG collaborated with local facilitators as an extension to help and supervise partners in

the research and advocacy processes. In every area, a local facilitator is chosen to save

time and cost on face-to-face meetings with clients. CIPG decided the general criteria

for local facilitators would be having the same level of knowledge on the situation of

each region as the partners, and are experienced in interacting with CSOs in the region.

A special selection criterion for the research stage is knowledge in academic writing and

research including research methods. Meanwhile, for the advocacy stage is knowledge

and experience in advocacy both to the government or to a constituency.

Choosing a local facilitator begins at the same time as cooperating with partners in

the beginning phase of the VOICE programme. As recommended by CIPG‘s network

and an internet study, CIPG received several suggestions for local facilitators. To

understand their capacity, CIPG requested every candidate to send their CV and attend

an interview to understand their interest in issues chosen by partners. After receiving

a few names, the CIPG team held a meeting with directors to decide the relevancy of

each candidate’s experience for the research issues chosen by our partners. Below is

the selection process:

Attachment Table 1 Local Facilitator Selection Process

Phase Selection Process Expected Outcome

Research Internet search, recommendations

Research assistance, improving methodology, case analysis, technical assistance for writing research report

CV interview, CV selection

Director’s decision and team

AdvocacyPhaseResearch

Internet search, recommendations

Advocacy assistance, sharpening strategy for advocacy, improving recommendations, technical assistance for writing policy paper and popular writingExpected OutcomeResearch assistance, improving methodology, case analysis, technical assistance for writing research report

Selection Process

Internet search, recommendations

Source: Authors

90

At the research phase facilitators are expected to give short-distance consultations to

each CSO in a more intense manner. Local facilitators familiar with CSOs who come

from the same area are expected to dispel any awkwardness in consultations between

the facilitators and the CSOs. Local facilitators are also expected to give their own

perspective as well as context based on their local knowledge.

Assistance by local facilitators can be done through scheduled face-to-face meetings.

Consultations are not limited to face-to-face meetings but also through communication

by phone, emails and WhatsApp. This is done to help all partners to freely develop ideas

for their research and writing up their report.

After a tough discussion process, we chose three people to assist the CSOs:

Anhar Putra Iswanto is a local facilitator who assisted the research phase of Pasirputih

Community and AMAN Sumbawa that are both located in the region of West Nusa

Tenggara. Anhar is an elected secretary of the North Lombok Local Research Board

(DRD) since 2016. He had written articles to do with public policy and political analysis.

The Master of Sociology graduate of Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang was also part

of the team for the creation of Local Law for Indigenous Societies in Sumbawa.

Nurhady Sirimorok assisted AcSI and Yayasan Maupe Maros for the research and

advocacy phases. In 1999, he and his friends initiated and founded Ininnnawa, a

community in Sulawesi Selatan which is part of the Indonesian Society for Social

Transformation (INSIST) network. He graduated with a master’s degree in Rural

Livelihood and Global Change from the Institute of Social Studies, Den Haag, in 2017.

He specialises in rural and social organisation issues. He has published several books,

including Laskar Pemimpi: Andrea Hirata, Pembacanya dan Modernisasi Indonesia

(InsistPress, 2008), Membangun Kesadaran Kritis (InsistPress, 2010) and the latest one,

Catatan Perjalanan tentang Satu Bahasa: Melihat Desa Lebih Dekat (EA Books, 2018). His

articles have also appeared in Jurnal Wacana, INSIST. His short stories and essays are

available on various media both online and offline.

91

Pantoro Tri Kuswardono is a local facilitator for Yasalti and Yabiku for the research and

advocacy phase. He left Bandung after Indonesia’s Reformation Period to live in Kupang.

The carpenter school alumni was once a national campaigner for WALHI in 2005-2008,

and he was the international coordinator for Agrofuel’s Campaign Friends of the Earth

International.

Up until now, he has been active in policy analysis regarding ecology, food, climate

change, and disaster risk reduction with several organisations including Oxfam and the

Asia Foundation. He is also a facilitator for social analysis, strategic planning and data

analysis. Since 2014 he is the director of Pikul and a member of the management for

Jaringan Advocacy Tambang and Yayasan Para Perintis.

94

Centre for Innovation Policy and Governance

Indonesia Sustainability CentreJl. Danau Toba No 138 CBendungan Hilir, Tanah AbangJakarta Pusat, 10210

Website : www.cipg.or.idFacebook : Centre for Innovation Policy and GovernanceTwitter : @icipg